Best christian apologetics books according to redditors
We found 817 Reddit comments discussing the best christian apologetics books. We ranked the 215 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
We found 817 Reddit comments discussing the best christian apologetics books. We ranked the 215 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
After reading through your responses here, I feel the need to clarify for you exactly what an argument is and what it can do. You list examples like evolution and heliocentrism and ask how those might affect one's faith. In reality, these arguments do nothing to disprove God, and are in fact separate issues entirely.
The way you've been speaking so far, it seems like the arguments you're assuming are these:
and
Do you see the leaps here? The statement "God does exist" is not a logically valid inference from these arguments. They, in fact, cannot say anything about whether or not God exists; such is simply not a possibility in the premises. What they really can do is this:
and
Now, does "the church was wrong [on this occasion]" and "some Christians are wrong" equate to "God does not exist?" No. It means that it is a logical possibility, yes, but it does mean that is certain or even probable.
In addition, you'll find that these arguments are not conflicts at all for the vast majority of Christians, especially those who frequent r/Christianity. This is why:
You should also be aware of the philosophical foundation for science. Science is inherently naturalistic, which means that it cannot interact in any way with things outside of nature (related: it is also incapable of 'proving' anything, only math and logic can do that; science can only disprove and assume that which is most probable given the evidence). This includes God, as he exists outside of the universe as we perceive it. Dealing with things outside of nature is the realm of metaphysics, and metaphysics is largely philosophy and logic, not science. Thus, any argument that claims "science has proven God does not exist" is an argument resetting entirely on false beliefs about what exactly science is. This is what others in this thread have been saying.
Given all that, you'd do well to know exactly what arguments do set out to disprove God - and there are very few of them that do so in a valid way. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theogica, was in the habit of stating a point, giving three positions on this point, and then stating his view which was contrary to the three and then arguing against the three first points. In his section on "Whether God Exists?" he only lists two reasons; this is because very few of the arguments that claim to disprove God can actually logically do so. These are the arguments he lists:
and
Note that these aren't the arguments exactly as he lists them; I've updated them slightly to better reflect how they are used today.
The second argument is yet another argument making a logically invalid conclusion from the premises. Whether or not mankind needs God to exist is irrelevant to whether or not he actually exists. Thus this argument falls flat.
The first argument is known as the Problem of Evil, and it has been a huge issue for theists for a very long time. It has not been answered in a way that most theists find existentially satisfying, meaning that no matter how the problem is answered, evil is always a big problem in everyone's life, and it's always hard to understand why God won't just take it away. That said, the Problem of Evil relies entirely on this premise:
We have to ask is that really so? And the answer is, we have no idea if it is or not. It is logically possible that an all-good, all-poweful being could co-exist with evil, even if we don't know how that is possible. Ultimately, this argument is an argument from ignorance, meaning that it relies on the fact that we don't know something to make its claim (The "God of the gaps" argument does the same thing, by the way - it says "Look, we don't know how x or y happen, therefore God"). This is a logical fallacy, and as a result the problem of evil also cannot logically disprove God - though the answer does very little to comfort someone dealing with evil.
I highly recommend you watch Tim Keller on the Problem of Evil at Google. Tim Keller is a big-name pastor in New York in addition to being a popular apologist (meaning one who defends an intellectual stance - in this case, Christianity).
I feel it's worth mentioning what is probably the most common argument against theism, and especially Christianity, most especially on the internet. This is the argument:
You should be able to tell by now that this argument is not a true argument at all. The conclusion has nothing at all to do with the premise. It sounds crazy to some people that Christians believe in life after death, but that does not mean it is false, and it certainly does not mean God does not exist. It sounds crazy to some people that some Christians believe that bread blessed by a priest becomes the body of Christ, but that does not mean it is false, and it certainly does not mean God does not exist (a lot of the popular arguments against evolution use this tactic, and are also invalid). This tactic is the one most commonly used by Richard Dawkins.
Ultimately, that 'argument' fails because it relies entirely on the perception of the individual and has absolutely nothing to do with logic. It merely disguises itself as logic.
Now, if you really want to read more about why people believe God can logically exist, you want to look into books on apologetics. There are a whole lot of those, as it has been a popular topic for hundreds of years now, but two that are quite accessible and quite strong are The Reason for God by Tim Keller, who I mentioned above, and Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis, of Narnia fame. These two books deal with how God can logically exist, but there are a wealth of books on other apologetic issues, like how we can trust the Bible to be accurate (Reinventing Jesus is a very good book for this issue).
Edit: error corrections, some paranthetical statements.
Catholics claim to be followers of Jesus. They follow rules from tradition, handed down from Jesus through a continuous succession of popes. They think the Bible is a great book, but not exactly the word of God.
Fundamentalist Christians generally believe that Catholics have drifted from Jesus teachings. Instead, they believe the only true way to follow Jesus is through the Bible. They think that the Bible is the literal word of God and is exactly true.
EDIT:
For those interested in the apparent conflict between science and religion, a great book to read is by Francis Collins, one of the leaders behind the sequencing of the human genome, the current head of the NIH, and a deeply religious man, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief
https://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744
You should definitely check out The Language of God by Francis Collins. The guy was the director of the human genome project and is a believer in both evolution and God. Basically, science cannot prove nor disprove God OR atheism, because the mode of science is the natural laws (time, gravity, etc), and if God is supernatural then he exists outside of such laws. We cannot "test" for a creator.
> There's absolutely no burden of proof on the theist.
gupol - a typo? If not, the first full bullet point is non-coherent.
----
So .... the fallacy of presuppositionalism is what you, OP, gupol, consider evidence for the existence of God? Damn, I am getting dizzy from going round and round on this merry-go-round of the faculty of fallacious reason.
And what do we say about the crapfest of presup?
As much as it pains me to agree with William Lane Craig, I will have to go with what this Great Christian Apologeticist god (lower case 'G'), who has said regarding Christianity (but is applicable to other Theist belief systems):
"...presuppositionalism is guilty of a logical howler: it commits the informal fallacy of petitio principii, or begging the question, for it advocates presupposing the truth of Christian theism in order to prove Christian theism....It is difficult to imagine how anyone could with a straight face think to show theism to be true by reasoning, 'God exists. Therefore, God exists.' Nor is this said from the standpoint of unbelief. A Christian theist himself will deny that question-begging arguments prove anything..."
Source: Five Views on Apologetics by Steven B. Cowan, page 232-233
Or we can go with Drs. John H. Gerstner, Arthur W. Lindsley, and R.C. Sproul ....
“Presuppositionalism burns its evidential bridges behind it and cannot, while remaining Presuppositional, rebuild them. It burns its bridges by refusing evidences on the ground that evidences must be presupposed. “Presupposed evidences” is a contradiction in terms because evidences are supposed to prove the conclusion rather than be proven by it. But if the evidences were vindicated by the presupposition then the presupposition would be the evidence. But that cannot be, because if there is evidence for or in the presupposition, then we have reasons for presupposing, and we are, therefore, no longer presupposing.” (source: Classical Apologetics: A Rational Defense of the Christian Faith and a Critique of Presuppositional Apologetics)
> There's absolutely no burden of proof on the theist. This is nothing more than the postmodern slogan-speak of the atheist in the gaps fallacy.
Post modern huh? Damn those postmodern 16th century dead-language speaking time-traveling lawyers: "semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit" ("the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges"/"The claimant is always bound to prove, [the burden of proof lies on the actor.]")
> theists are not beholden to the presumptuous and arbitrary constraints of the materialist's metaphysics regarding what does or does not constitute justified true belief.
"True belief" - an imagination or conceptual possibility artificially elevated to a positive probability to absolute (or near absolute) certain based upon feelings, appeal to emotion based on confirmation bias, the ego-conceit that highly-subjective mind-dependent qualia-experience of self-affirmation that what "I know in my heart of hearts represents Truth" supports a mind-independent actually credible truth or fact value. Got it. Super. And I bet you vote OP.
His story and testimony is so profound. If you are not familiar with his book "Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus" I advise all to read it! It is amazing! https://www.amazon.com/Seeking-Allah-Finding-Jesus-Christianity/dp/0310527236
I have prayed for Nabeel over the past year or so as he has been battling this cancer. As he has nothing now to hold onto except the hand of Jesus, I pray that Nabeel will do just that! I pray Jesus that you will be His strong tower and place of refuge. You are the healer and no sickness is too difficult for you to take, as you said by your stripes we are all healed. I pray against any fear or worry that he may be dealing with right now. May his extended family come to knowledge of you as well, as I know that is what Nabeel desires more than anything, even his life, for his parents to know you Jesus. So speak to them through this I pray.
Bart Ehrman - Jesus Interrupted (2010)
In this deliciously satisfying book, the author, a New Testament scholar, carefully reviews and assesses the New Testament with a detailed and extremely thorough analysis of the figure we call Jesus. This is not a rant, not an attack on Christianity, this is an objective and critical analysis of the New Testament, showing how the entire Jesus myth and indeed, all of Christianity is a purposely-designed fabrication rife with contradictions, inaccuracies, and sometimes outright falsehoods.
John Loftus - Why I Became an Atheist (2008)
If you want a one-stop total critique of Christianity, this is the book you're looking for. The author is a former Christian apologist turned extremely angry and prolific atheist. In this book Loftus attacks the full span of Christianity, addressing the philosophical arguments against theism, the historical incompatibilities and inaccuracies of the Bible, and the contradictions between creationism and modern science, and throughout it all is an undercurrent of personal experience as Loftus explains his own deconversion from devout evangelicalism to enraged atheist.
Concerning atheism.
These are for the people going "Well, I'm an atheist. Now what?" There's more to atheism than eating babies and posting fake facebook conversations on r/atheism. There's much more truth, beauty, and value in a universe without a celestial supervisor, where humans are free to make our own purposes and dictate our own paths. Thinking for yourself and recognizing the natural wonder of the universe is far greater than the false consolation any religion can provide you. These books show how.
Michael Martin - Atheism: A Philosophical Justification (1989)
In this book, Martin attempts a two-pronged defense of atheism: first by attacking theistic arguments regarding the implausibility of morality and purpose without God, second by defending against attacks specifically on atheism. In such a manner he makes a strong case for both negative and positive atheism. Though extremely dated, this book is a classic and a must-read for any atheist.
Erik J. Wielenberg - Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe (2005)
In this book, Wielenberg advances a naturalist philosophy and addresses the problem of nontheistic morality as weakly espoused by the likes of Dostoevsky and C.S. Lewis. First he challenges the claims of theistic morality, next he advances naturalistic ethics and displays how theological justification is unnecessary for a good and moral life. Concepts such as intrinsic morality, inherent human tendencies such as charity and altruism, and the idea of moral obligations are all addressed.
Richard Carrier - Sense and Goodness Without God (2005)
In this book, Richard Carrier, perhaps most well-known as one of the major modern debunkers of the Jesus myth, continues the trend of expanding metaphysical naturalism, but this is a more complex and thorough work covering the full spectrum of a developed worldview, addressing nearly every topic beyond just morality, and presents a complete philosophical outlook on life that is easy to comprehend and evaluate. A solid starting point for the newly atheist.
My personal picks.
Now, since this is my list after all, and after typing up all of that, I think I've earned the right to make my own recommendations. These are books that I think people should read that don't necessarily have anything to do with atheism.
Markos Moulitsas - American Taliban (2010)
This book reads like a collection of loosely-related blog entries, some of them written by angry teenagers, and Moulitsas himself is no philosopher or professor, but is still an important read for those of you who haven't been paying attention. In this book, the founder of Daily Kos draws the extremely obvious and transparent similarities between the religious right of America, and the Islamofascists across the pond, and displays how modern conservatism has largely been hijacked and/or replaced by a complex political machine intent on maintaining the power of a small group of white, male, Christian elite.
Chris Hedges - American Fascists (2007)
Okay, time for a more sophisticated take on the issue than Daily Kos stuff. Those of you who plan on staying and fighting in the US rather than simply getting the fuck out while you still can need this book. With a critical and objective eye, Hedges displays the dark and tumultuous underbelly of America and shows how an extremely powerful and well-organized coalition of dominionists is slowly taking over the country and seeking to transform it into a theocratic state. Those of you who are moderate Christians and similarly despise the lunatic fringe of Christians should also read this book. Hedges analyzes this Christian Right movement, allied with totalitarianism and a denial of reality, that has declared a jihad (or a "teahad", if you're a Tea Partier) on secularism and even on Christianity itself, utilizing religion for its darkest and most sinister purpose - committing cruelty and intolerance upon others in the name of divine supervision.
CJ Werleman - God Hates You, Hate Him Back (2009)
This is one of my favorite books and is a great book to unwind with after a critical look at Christianity. The biggest problem with the Bible is not the contradictions, the outright falsehoods, or even the blatantly made-up and ridiculous bullshit about magic and miracles and supernatural nonsense - it's the fact that, taking it all at face value, the God described in the Bible is the single most despicable and terrifying fictional villain ever imagined by humanity. This is a character that seems to actively despise mankind, and in this book, Werleman shows why with a hilarious and thorough analysis of the Bible. This book reads like Monty Python and is just as funny - not meant to be taken seriously of course unless you're a Biblical literalist, but still a great read.
Well, that's all I got. This list took about half a day to compile and is itself also woefully inadequate, there's quite a bit of books I haven't gotten around to reading yet. But, it should be much more sufficient than the current r/atheism reading lists and I've done my best to include the most recent works. If you have any books to add that you feel are noteworthy, please feel free to post them. I hope this list can help many people in their understanding of philosophy and atheism.
Hi /u/iwillyes, I'm glad you're here! Let me start by talking a bit about what the Reformed tradition of Christianity is.
The Reformed Tradition is a branch of Protestant Christianity that developed during the Reformation in Switzerland, Scotland, France and the low countries. John Calvin was (and is) the most influential theologian in the Reformed tradition. While we share many similarities with Anglicans, Baptists and Lutherans we are usually seen as a distinct strand. We disagree on the meaning of both Baptism and the Eucharist, for example (in both regards Lutherans are closer to Catholics). Pentecostals and Anabaptist are quite different.
In terms of what makes the Reformed different from other Protestant groups, I love this quote by Cornelius Plantinga:
>>Our accents lie more on the sovereignty of God, on the authority of Scripture, on the need for disciplined holiness in personal Christian life, and finally, on Christianity as a religion of the Kingdom.
That emphasis on the sovereignty of God over all things is in my mind what most clearly distinguishes the reformed tradition. Part of that is understanding God to be sovereign in salvation - what is commonly known as the five points of Calvinism. Basically we believe that because of we are dead in our sin, man is utterly unable to do anything to save himself - even unable to turn to God. It is only through God's grace of drawing us to him that we are able to have the faith that saves us. This means that we contribute nothing to our own salvation - it is entirely a work of God.
In the U.S. there are two main groups of Reformed churches: Presbyterians (the Scottish Reformed) and the Dutch Reformed. Historically Scottish Reformed have put a bit more emphasis on personal piety (the Puritans are part of this group) while the Dutch Reformed have put slightly more emphasis on declaring the Lordship of Christ over all creation. But, we are very, very similar. The Reformed tradition is a deeply confessional one. We hold to historic documents that describe what we understand scripture to teach on a wide range of matters. The Presbyterians hold to the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Dutch Reformed hold to the Three Forms of Unity. While different documents, the two sets of confessions essentially teach the same doctrine.
In terms of churches the large (100k+ members) Presbyterian denominations in the US are the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Presbyterian Chrurch in America. the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, and ECO: A Covenant Order of Presbyterians. The PC(USA) is a more "liberal" church while the others are more "conservative" to varying degrees. The two large Dutch Reformed denominations are the Reformed Church in America and the Christian Reformed Church. There are also many smaller Presbyterian and Reformed denominations. Many of them are part of the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council.
What complicates things a bit is that in recent years, many Christians in other traditions have started using "reformed" to mean they have a Calvinistic view of salvation, even if they don't fit into the broader reformed tradition in other ways. You will find a lot of Baptists who have a Calvinistic view of salvation, but not of the sacraments or the church, for example. This sub tends to attract both the more conservative branch of the Reformed tradition as well as those who just have a Calvinistic view of salvation.
In terms of books, my number one recommendation for you is Letters to a Young Calvinist: An Invitation to the Reformed Tradition by Jamie Smith. It's a quick easy read best digested in small parts. It does a great job of providing an overview of the Reformed tradition that is accessible, theological, and pastoral. It's aimed at those who have a 'come-to-Calvin' moment from within other theological traditions (Smith was pentecostal), but would benefit everyone.
Also read through some of the Reformed Confessions. The best place to start is with the Heidelberg Catechim and the Belgic Confession. If you want a more modern approach, I'd encourage you to also read the Christian Reformed Church's Contemporary Testimony Our World Belongs To God, too.
Other good "intro" level books:
Once you feel ready for higher level stuff, I recommend:
As a Catholic, I agree that we should read what the other side has to say. My concern with Richard Dawkins is that he's a great scientist but a notoriously bad philosopher. Even a lot of atheist philosophers skewer him.
If science is your jam, I encourage you too look into the work of Fr. Robert Spitzer, a Catholic priest who has deeply studied astrophysics. You can find a lot of his talks on YouTube. He also has a book attempting to prove the existence of God based on recent developments in astrophysics: https://www.amazon.com/New-Proofs-Existence-God-Contributions/dp/0802863833
I also encourage you the read Fides et ratio by Pope John Paul II which is a letter to the Church outlining the relationship between faith and reason (especially in response to some of the new scientific developments occurring during his pontificate): http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091998_fides-et-ratio.html
Yeah, he made reference to well-known arguments for the existence of God that are easily found in such books as An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion and The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology and Proofs of God: Classical Arguments from Tertullian to Barth and New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy.
Mere Christianity - C.S. Lewis
The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism - Tim Keller
Gunning for God: Why the New Atheists are Missing the Target - John Lennox
The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God - John Frame
Van Til's Apologetic: Readings and Analysis - Greg Bahnsen
The last two are more in-depth philosophy-wise than the first three.
>Is there anything else I have to do?
Pray! Fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending Mass every Sunday! Make special note of any feast days or Holy Days of Obligation on your calendar! Spend time in contemplation before Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament!
This is a very exciting time for you. You get to discover all of the things that we cradle-catholics often take for granted. Learn about the Church's devotions, Her saints, Her disciplines. Explore different liturgies at different parishes. If you can find a Church with a beautiful choir that sings the Latin propers for Mass, give that a shot, just to experience it! Later on, you may even want to explore the Extraordinary Form of the Mass as well.
And read! Get your hands on a Catechism! Check out "Theology for Beginners" by F.J. Sheed.
Also look at purchasing "Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic" by David Currie and "Rome Sweet Home" by Scott & Kimberly Hahn. You won't be disappointed.
The problem is, a lot of the books that Christians here are recommending are very different in both style and direction than the kinds of books that you're talking about with Dawkins and Hitchens. Which, to be frank, ought to be expected. Detailed philosophical argumentation just isn't something most Christians are worried about or interested in since, once establishing faith, theology and discipleship are far more interesting intellectual pursuits to believers.
In any case, here are a variety of more serious academic responses to the kinds of books you've been reading:
Reasonable Faith By William Lane Craig
Warranted Christian Belief by Alvin Plantinga
Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism by Alvin Plantinga
Why God Won't Go Away: Is the New Atheism Running on Empty? by Alister Mcgrath
Belief: Readings on the Reason for Faith by Francis S Collins
God and Stephen Hawking: Whose Design Is It Anyway? by John C Lennox
Gunning for God: Why the New Atheists are Missing the Target by John C Lennox
Edit: And don't forget that you don't have to buy any of these books to read them! For serious. Library card + inter-library loan system via internet is the way to win.
This was what first made me start the process of deconversion. I had for a long time held that some form of theistic evolution must be true. I had read Francis Collins, and John Walton books, and thought my reasoning was logical.
The tiny seeds of my eventual deconversion were planted however in a discussion/debate with my mother-in-law. She is a staunch creationist, doesn't think anyone who believes in evolution can possibly be a christian. We had a long discussion about the issue, and she kind of came around to my point of view--or at least didn't think I was going straight to hell anymore. But in the course of this conversation, she off-handedly made some comment about evolution meaning there was always death. We didn't really talk about the subject any more than that.
But it kept popping into my mind over the coming days. And for some reason, I had never considered this idea before. Months later, after much research, reading and considering, I came to realize that I could find no acceptable explanation for what "the fall" was, if it was a merely symbolic event. If there was always sickness and pain and death from day one, then the world was always "fallen". And without a fall, my understanding of who Jesus was and what he did was on VERY shaky ground. So it was the beginning of the end for me.
A fellow named Francis Collins lead the Human Genome Project. He's an Evangelical Christian according to Wikipedia. I read his "Language of God" book a while back, about the process of mapping the human genome. It is essentially his defense (on the one hand) of why evolution is the way everything happened, and why (on the other hand) he believes the things he does. Interesting read.
> Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel
That book cherry-picks scientific facts when it serves its purposes and dismisses others when it does not. The author knows Creationism is indefensible so he settles for the middle ground, Intelligent Design. The scholars cited are at the fringe of their fields of study. There are medical doctors out there who are anti-vax, or who advocate homeopathy. Does that lead any credence to the anti-vax or homeopathic movements? No, it does not. So, the book you presented is a great example of alternative facts, and your sentence "The only alternative facts come from unbelievers who suppress the truth in exchange for a lie such as Dawkins, Harris, and others" is absurd, there are plenty of honest believers out there who spouse untruths regarding a wide range of topics due to ignorance. To be clear, I believe in the Creator, but His modus operandi, His method of creation, is imprinted upon the Earth itself and not to what Christian tradition thinks it should be. As Paul said, God's attributes are perfectly seen through the things that were created.
I in turn respectfully recommend you read The Language of God by evangelical author and one of the heads of the Human Genome Project, Francis Collins.
I will submit a Christian opinion if you don't mind Reddit. I think everyone needs to question their Faith. My advice is to get away from the Catholic church and explore different philosophies and definitely read some Christian literature as well. A few suggestions:
Mere Christianity - C.S. Lewis
The Language of God - Francis Collins
What's So Great About Christianity - Dinesh D'souza
Go explore for yourself. Actually reading and thinking about things for yourself is much more satisfying than sitting in religion class and being told to blindly follow. Best of luck!
Here are some book suggestions. I have not read them, but they are on my reading list.
Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity
Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists
Losing My Religion: How I Lost My Faith Reporting on Religion in America and Found Unexpected Peace
I became an atheist when I learned about the burden of proof.
I had lots of reasons I had thought of or heard about that made it impossible for someone to prove that God didn't exist.
All those reasons and explanations became irrelevant when I realized I was the person making the claim. Atheists would have no reason to say there was no god if I stopped claiming there was a god. I was the person who needed to show that God exists.
Then all my arguments stopped working. Evolution didn't disprove my god, but it didn't support it. The problem of evil didn't disprove my god, but it didn't support it. I realized I had no positive evidence for my god. I just had ways to negate any evidence against my god.
That is when I became an atheist.
My book recommendation would be Why I Became an Atheist by John Loftus. It is a very well-written book that had responses to all of my arguments for Christianity and responses to a lot of things I hadn't thought of yet.
>the Bible is authenticated by many things. In a word, it is a collection of historical documents that chronicle historical events. The only reason to believe that their recordings are less than factual is if one begins from the standpoint that only things that can be explained by science are possible.
Actually, no.
It would be biased to assume naturalism over supernaturalism, which sciences such as biology and physics do assume (for good reason). But the science of history does not make that assumption. You might consider reading The God Debates by John Shook as he actually covers that exact point in great detail.
The fact is that even people who started out wanting to prove the bible as factually correct have been forced to come to the conclusion that many of its historical claims are proven wrong not just by the science of history but also by other fields of science. For example, if we all descended from the handful of people on Noahs ark (who were all closely related anyway) then we would expect to see those markers in our genes. We do not however, and the level of diversity in human genes confirms our evolutionary view that humans have a mitochondrial eve around 200,000 years ago. Sure, the religious could say that god simply inserted the extra diversity in there but then you get into omphalism and many are wary to believe in a god who sets out to deceive them. Every time you have to invoke the supernatural in order to justify your worldview inevitably involves special pleading.
>By style, cross-referencing, and archaeology, the Bible appears to be recording historical events. The authenticity of the Bible is an entire field of study, and by far the Bible is the most deeply studied text in the world.
The bible is not even internally consistent, you could do a quick Google search for contradictions in the bible and you will find this list pretty quickly. But suppose the bible was internally consistent, and it can be safe to do so without ceding any argumentative ground since internal consistency does not alone determine whether a book is true, you say that the bible can be cross referenced with other sources but you don't provide examples. So lets take a minute to examine some of the inconsistencies with other sources.
In the bible Jesus is born during a census (the census is the reason for Joseph and Mary to be in Bethlehem), the only trouble is that the census does not appear to take place in any other records. At least, not in the form or at the time the bible claims it does. The bible seems to imply that Joseph must return to his ancestral home (Joseph was of the line of David and Bethlehem is the city of David.). To put this simply, the Romans did not require that someone go to the birth city of an ancestor 20-40 generations ago (the discrepancy is due to differing accounts of David's lineage between Matthew and Luke), to require this of someone would be utter chaos.
That is just one of the problems the bible faces. As pointed out elsewhere other big thorns in the side of using the bible as a historical account are the origin of languages, the exodus (or to a larger degree Jews being slaves in Egypt at all), and the global flood. There is no evidence to support the biblical accounts of these things. I recommend reading The Bible Unearthed. It is written by two Jewish archaeologists so they certainly do not set out to disprove the bible, but given the evidence they find they simply must come to the conclusion that it cannot be used as a historical text.
i haven't read it, but The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief by Francis Collins is probably in the vein of what you are looking for.
In Christian apologetics there are competing viewpoints. One is classical apologetics which has a two step process [1) prove God of theism exists and 2) prove Christianity is the religion that the God of theism is speaking through]. Evidentialist apologetics on the other hand, tries to argue that Christianity is true, mostly using apologetics concerning the Resurrection. This is a one step model, because the assumption is that if the Resurrection is true, and the Gospels reliably document it, then it would prove Christ's claims to be true.
You'd probably want to look into Evidentialist Apologetics. I don't know of any big names, the only one I vaguely know about is Gary Habermas, but I only know his name because I read "Five Views of Apologetics" and he was the one who wrote about Evidentialism.
Here are some books, articles, websites and YouTube Videos that helped me on my journey from a hardcore creationist to a High School Biology teacher.
BOOKS
The Language of God - By Francis Collins ~ A defense of Evolution by the head of the Human Genome Project (Who also happens to be Christian)
Only a Theory - By Ken Miller ~ Another Christian biologist who accepts and vigorously defends the theory of evolution
Your Inner Fish - by Neil Shubin ~ The wonderful story of how Tiktaalik was found
Why Evolution is True - By Jerry Coyne ~ A simple and thorough treatment of evolution written for the mainstream
The Greatest Show on Earth - By Richard Dawkins ~ A wonderful and beautifully written celebration of evolution
The Panda's Thumb - By Stephen Jay Gould ~ A collection of eloquent and intelligent essays written by SJG. Any of his collections would do but this one is my favorite.
ARTICLES
Crossing the Divide - By Jennifer Couzin ~ an article about an ex-creationist and his difficult journey into enlightenment.
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense - John Rennie ~ a nice rundown of the major objections to evolution.
WEBSITE
An index of Creationist Claims - Via the TalkOrigins archive ~ an impressive index of the major problems creationists have with evolution, as well as good, evidence based rebuttals.
YOUTUBE VIDEOS/PLAYLISTS
Why do People Laugh at Creationsts? - Via Thunderf00t ~ a scathing review of outrageous sins of logic committed by creationists. Thunderf00t's style isn't for everyone, since he can come off as smug and superior
How Evolution Works - Via DonExodus2 ~ a nice and thorough overview of how evolution works
The Theory of Evolution Made Easy - Via Potholer54
Evolution - Via Qualia Soup ~ short (10 minutes), simple and well made, this is one of my go-to videos to help logically explain how evolution happens.
Blessings to you. Have you tried reading “the case for Christ” and “letters from a skeptic”
Those two books have helped me in the past when I struggled with the same questions you have. They’re a bit older books, but I hope you find them helpful as you search for answers.
I know God is TOTALLY OK with you having those questions and wants to answer them and to develop a relationship with you where you ask Him and He answers back.
So you can just talk to Him like you’re talking to us.
Or telling Him exactly what you told us. That you want to believe in Him but have so many wuestions about His goodness and don’t understand the bad in the world.
Also, remember that one of the first questions in the garden was to question the goodness of God. It’s an ancient lie that God isn’t good or that He isn’t good to us. It’s the oldest lie in the book.
So please, take your doubts and concerns to Him as only He can give you the answers you’re seeking. He won’t turn you away as you come to Him with an open heart and open mind to know Him.
Praying you find Him in ways bigger and better than you’re expecting, because He loves you and wants to show himself real to you.
Big hug!
Edit : pls excuse typos, on phone typing quickly. And your English is great!!
Edit 2: here’s the link to the books I referenced. I read them in college (I’m in my 30s now) so they’re very easy reads. Hope you find them helpful if you do read them. And find a couple things in them that can help you in your journey.
letters from a skeptic
the case for Christ
I'm not sure if this exactly fits the bill, but how about Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic?
EDIT: formatting
Personally, I think there's a lot of garbage, namby-pamby advice in this thread.
As Venerable Fulton Sheen said, "There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church — which is, of course, quite a different thing."
If you believe the Catholic Faith is true, then presumably your end goal is their conversion. If it's not, it should be.
Perhaps the initial explanation won't go well. That's fine. Whatever happens, don't burn any bridges. Unfortunately, since it's today there's not much more prep you can do.
The best advice I can give is to come armed with what they think they know. Beyond the initial, emotional reaction, they will have arguments. Maybe not today, but they'll come. They already know what they're going to say. They already have their "Catholicism is the Whore of Babylon Talking Points" on a 3x5 index card (even if it's just a mental index card.) So what do you do? Surprise them. Steal their lines. Ask questions that they aren't expecting. Since you already know all of the anti-Catholic talking points, you are (hopefully) well prepared to counter them with clarity and charity, using Holy Scripture as your guide.
Also, remember you're not alone in this. LOTS of fantastic people have made this conversion. Here are a few book recs that are relevant.
Catholicism and Fundamentalism
Rome Sweet Home
Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic
Crossing the Tiber: Evangelical Protestants Discover the Historical Church
I haven't read this one yet, but it also looks awesome. Dr. Brant Pitre also writes on this topic:
The Fourth Cup: Unveiling the Mystery of the Last Supper and the Cross
If you are in college, seek out your Catholic Campus Ministries program, if you have one, and speak to the representative about RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults).
If the college has no CCM (or its equal), then seek out the local parish in your area and speak directly to the pastor about converting to the faith.
Before all of this, though, pray.
If the pastor you go to makes you feel like you have to run the gauntlet to join the Roman Church - this is a good thing. We have too many lukewarm Catholics who do not practice what the Church teaches. If you're going to join, we want you to be all-in.
Next, study. Do your own research with the Scriptures, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and Canon Law to be your guide.
If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask them here (or with your local pastor).
Edit Recommended Reading
I also recommend watching some episodes of Catholicism by Fr. Robert Barron.
May I recommend a book you might find interesting? It's called The Language of God by Francis S. Collins. He is a prominent scientist and was head of the Human Genome Project. You can pick it up used with free shipping for $5 on Amazon.
Unclean by Richard Beck
The Language of God by Dr. Francis Collins
The Lost World of Genesis One by John H. Walton
Birth and Death: Bioethical Decision Making by Paul D. Simmons
The Authenticity of Faith by Richard Beck
Beyond The Firmament by Gordon J. Glover
All of these were required reads for me as I pursued a biology degree at a Christian university. I hope these help, and I wish you the best! If you have any questions about any of the books, please feel free to ask!!
Perhaps this book will help? Nabeel Qureshi is a former Muslim and a very intellectually honest person as well.
https://www.amazon.com/Seeking-Allah-Finding-Jesus-Christianity/dp/0310527236
New Evidence that Demands a Verdict
More Than a Carpenter
Cold Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels On my to read list.
Faith on Trial: An Attorney Analyzes the Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus
The Case for Christ
The Case for Faith
The Case for a Creator
The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus On my to read list.
The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ On my to read list.
Besides the apologetics books, you can watch John Lennox on YouTube. He is a very well-spoken and kind (doesn't attack the other debater) debater. Very well thought out responses. The Dawkins vs Lennox debate was awesome! Ditto Gary Habermas as well.
Why don't you try Dan Barker's book? "Losing Faith in Faith" He was a Preacher and became an atheist through time. Great story.
There is also "Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity"
Oh, I almost forgot William Lobdell. He covered religion for the LA Times for years but after reporting so much on religion he became an atheist. Here's his site and here's his book "Losing My Religion: How I Lost My Faith Reporting on Religion in America and Found Unexpected Peace"
Good luck!
edit:fixed link
edit2:fixed grammatical error
I know a Pentecostal guy who read Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic by David Currie and found it helpful.
Sure. Well, let me make a couple suggestions:
I'm gonna put in a shameless self-promotion for Catholic Word of the Day to get you up-to-speed on some of our vocabulary (along with some trivia).
But also check out Jimmy Akin and Catholic Answers for some basic stuff. Bishop Robert Barron also produces good content, as does Fr. Roderick Vonhogen.
Also, check out Rome Sweet Home by Dr. Hahn and Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic by David Currie.
But also, ask us around here your specific questions! We love answering questions from Catholics and non-Catholics alike.
I am another Christian who has read it. I know many others who have read it and have come to be more understanding of the atheistic viewpoint. I would also recommend it. :-)
I would also recommend for basic understanding of the Christian viewpoint:
BioLogos is always linked around here. It was founded by Francis Collins, an extremely successful geneticist and former atheist. He wrote a book which I've seen mentioned a lot but haven't read myself.
I have "seen" things that have convinced me. Not visually, but emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually my search for truth has always eventually lead me towards a belief in God. I'm not going to get into the individual things that lead me to be convinced of God as they are my lifetime so far of personal experience, education and seeking. But there is enough personal evidence to convince me to have faith.
I think you haven't seen anything convincing because you're looking for the wrong thing.
I could say that I don't believe in atoms, that I haven't seen demonstrable proof for them, you'll ask what would convince me, and I could say "I'll know it when I see it." You would conclude that I haven't examined the evidence properly. You'd find the fault in my view, not reality. How I look at it has no bearing on whether or not it is true. You trust yourself to be the judge of what constitutes adequate proof, but how do you know you're judging that properly.
God is something that would by nature be outside the realm of complete human understanding. We are biological beings with a limited subjective view trying to understand the existence of something limitless, something non-biological, something relational, spiritual, metaphysical. Yet you expect this very thing to physically manifest itself before your eyes before you'll even consider that it exists.
Even if it did physically manifest itself to you, through the lens of science, you wouldn't end up believe in the thing itself, just the bit that physically manifested.
What I'm getting at is that science can only prove the physical, so when asking questions about non-physical things you can't rely on science to reveal them. You can believe that there is only the physical, and science is therefore the only metric you need for assessing the truth. But as science can only measure the physical, you can't use it to prove that a non-physical doesn't exist.
You'll ask why this non-physical, if it does exist, hasn't reached out and confronted you, hasn't revealed itself to you. I'd say it has, but you choose not to listen, because you don't believe in it. You have to open yourself to it first. It's there. What you want is for it to take the last step, to make you believe in it. But you want it to do that on your physical terms.
Someone much more wise and eloquent than I can explain this idea better than I can:
Jordan Peterson on why he believes in God.
For the record I think the scientific case for God is also pretty decent. This book has helped me with that.
Here is a list of almost 70 books on science and faith but my favorite one is The language of God
Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics: Abridged in One Volume
Or a Clever Dripper, kitchen Scale and a Hario Mini Mill
The second option will require like $10 out of pocket, but still.
If by 'lacking' you mean 'nonexistent', then yes.
I went to public school but with heavy influence from my folks and church, all of whom seem to be involved in some sort of Fundamentalism competition. I learned exactly as much as I had to in order to pass the test, but I was always convinced it was a lie because scientists are all "out to get" Christianity.
I'm still wrapping my head around just how unhealthy this worldview can be.
I'll echo /u/Cognizant_Psyche - kudos on taking that first step and deciding to get smart on this topic.
I talked to my church pastor, who passed me off to his wife (who has apologetics degrees out the ass). She recommended The Language of God, a tactic which soundly backfired on her. That book was fantastic. It explains evolution from a DNA perspective but then tries to tell me I can still believe in God if I want to. For me, from such a fundamentalist, literalist background, the bible had to be true word-for-word, yet this book flew in the face of the entire Genesis account of creation. If that wasn't real, how could I trust any of the rest?
Once I was 'cleared' to learn about Evolution, I grabbed Dawkins' The God Delusion. I watched the Ham-Nye debate. I grabbed Who Wrote The New Testament, and Misquoting Jesus. That pretty much did it for me.
The God Debates: A 21st Century Guide for Atheists and Believers
http://www.amazon.com/God-Debates-Atheists-Believers-Everyone/dp/1444336428
Actually, this is a great book for both of you.
---------------------------------------------
If he's hard into philosophy:
The Miracle of Theism: Arguments For and Against the Existence of God by J. L. Mackie
http://www.amazon.com/Miracle-Theism-Arguments-Against-Existence/dp/019824682X/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1302906893&sr=1-4Mackie
The Impossibility of God / The Improbablity of God by Micheal Martin (and others)
http://www.amazon.com/Impossibility-God-Michael-Martin/dp/1591021200/ref=pd_sim_b_25
http://www.amazon.com/Improbability-God-Michael-Martin/dp/1591023815/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b
The Six Ways of Atheism: New Logical Disproofs of the Existence of God
http://www.amazon.com/Six-Ways-Atheism-Disproofs-Existence/dp/0954395662/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1302907259&sr=1-1
---------------------------------------------
The point is that Stephen Meyer is not an expert in any field of biology. Francis Collins is a Christian scientist who was heavily involved with the Human Genome Project when they were working on sequencing the entire human genome for the first time and is a reputable scholar among the scientific community as well as the current director of the National Institutes of Health. He published a book called The Language of God in 2007 which presents the case for evolution and its implications from a Christian perspective, in case you'd be interested in reading why the heck any scientist would accept as fact that you can trace your lineage back to a common ancestor with a strawberry. Evolution is not an intuitive concept without a decent understanding of the biological evidences that support it.
Francis Collins, former head of the Humane Genome project.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Language-God-Scientist-Presents/dp/1416542744
Interesting book.
Here's another good one by the cell biologist Ken Miller.
http://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0061233501/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1427248419&sr=1-1&keywords=finding+darwin%27s+god+by+kenneth+miller
He was also an expert witness in the Dover District school board trial where they tried to introduce Intelligent Design.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
BTW, every time I listen to a lecture/debate from John Lennox, I walk away with more books to read. Here's my list so far:
For those interested, I am 100% sure this is the book his father was referring to: http://www.amazon.com/Evidence-Demands-Questions-Challenging-Christians/dp/0785243631
My father and mother (when I was about 10 years old) bought me this book and asked me to read it. Its basically the author's life account about how he was an atheist (or agnostic, I'm unsure) while a law student and was writing a paper in which he would disprove Christianity's historical background.
While attempting to write the paper, he became a Christian. Its been a decade since I read the book so I cannot remember what was the turning point in his research, but maybe one of you knows?
Also, some have said around here that his father would make him read "the bible cover to cover" and at times I see other atheists like myself claim that they read the Bible in the same fashion. Most educated Christians would argue that you reading the Bible cover to cover does no good because of the organization of parables and metaphorical stories, and that it should be read with a guide. When I finished reading the bible it was after much guided reading in the way that most pastors are told to read it when studying it. I was and am an atheist, but I just thought I'd share that little bit of info.
http://strangenotions.com/jesus-did-exist/ .
Edit: Also, This book is completely free on Google...
https://www.amazon.com/Evidence-Demands-Questions-Challenging-Christians/dp/0785243631
Written by a guy who wanted to disprove Christianity and then became a Christian.
Loved it.
In addition to St. Thomas's five proofs, you can also check out Fr. Spitzer's New Proofs for the Existence of God.
Depends how familiar you are with Reformed theology already. I wouldn't say it is the best place to start in reformed theology. I would maybe start with Kuyper's Stone Lectures or maybe Bavinck. I would say be weary of anyone who tries to boil down Calvinism to 5 points. If you find a book that does that, it is doing Calvinism a serious injustice.
Ok, well it all depends what stage of the journey you are at. Since you have been an atheist, the first priority will be to convince yourself philosophically of what exactly God is, and that God exists. Probably the best concise reference for this would be Five Proofs of the Existence of God by Edward Feser (a professor of philosophy who was, in fact, an atheist himself, and is now a Catholic). Once you are in relative certainty about the existence of God, you need to know why the Christian theology represents a direct revelation of God to mankind. Obviously, the best record to attest to this fact is the Bible itself. I would really just recommend reading through the whole thing front to back if you haven't yet. If you get stuck in some of the Old Testament, flip over and start reading through the New Testament, and just make sure you cover all your bases there. Don't be afraid to come back with questions you might have about any scripture you read. Another good read might be an exposition on why we can trust the narrative on the resurrection of Jesus, where you might be interested in The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary Habermas, an evangelical Christian scholar. Once you're there, you'll be most of the way along your journey into the faith and you might still question why the Catholic Church is the "right" one. There are dozens and dozens of resources responding to various Protestant objections to the faith, but honestly the best thing you can do is probably Catholic radio and podcasts. And actually, if you listen to "Catholic Answers" podcast (just search it on YouTube, daily podcast that you can listen to on Catholic radio or on YouTube live 6-8PM EST daily), you'll get a variety of quality information that runs the gamut from classic philosophical proofs for God from Aristotelian arguments to details of objections to the historical office of the Papacy in the 16th century, and everything in between, and the guys who do the apologetics on there are really humorous sometimes.
So if you're really detail oriented and want to wade into some books, maybe start by taking a look at those. If you just want an enjoyable and easy way to broach all these topics at once, I'd suggest start looking at the "Catholic Answers" videos. You could even call in to the podcast and get your specific question answered on air!
Hope this helps!
You may also prepare yourself with a classic critic of this cult:
Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity (Paperback)
by John W. Loftus
Some opinions :
---------------------------
Here is what Dr. Geisler said (who is considered the DEAN of Christian apologetics, and wrote the Christian Encyclopedia of Apologetics, along with 70 other books): "[John's book] is a thoughtful and intellectually challenging work, presenting arguments that every honest theist and Christian should face."
---------------------
Dr. Mark D. Linville, Christian philosopher and contributor to the forthcoming Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology: "Of the spate of books coming from the so-called "New Atheists" that have appeared in the past few years--Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, et al--John W. Loftus's critique of Christian theism is by far the most sophisticated. Where, say, Dawkins might be found attacking a man of straw, Loftus understands and assesses the arguments of today's premier Christian apologists and philosophers. Evangelicals cannot afford to ignore Why I Became an Atheist."
--------------------
Dr. James F. Sennett, Christian philosopher and author of Modality, Probability, and Rationality: A Critical Examination of Alvin Plantinga's Philosophy: "Scholarly unbelief is far more sophisticated, far more defensible than any of us would like to believe. John W. Loftus is a scholar and a former Christian who was overwhelmed by that sophistication. His story is a wake up call to the church: it's time for us to start living in, and speaking to, the real world."
--------------------------
Below are some endorsements from skeptics:
--------------------------
Christopher Hallquist, president of Atheists, Humanists, and Agnostics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison: "The Outsider Test for Faith chapter should earn Loftus a permanent place in the history of critiques of religion."
----------------------
Dr. Richard Carrier, author of Sense and Goodness Without God: "[John's book addresses] almost every conceivable argument for Evangelical Christianity in extraordinary and sobering detail. Every important aspect of intellectual Evangelical Christian belief comes in for critique, and often in more depth than you'll find in any other pro-atheism tome. Indeed, unlike, say, Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins, Loftus is a fully-informed insider who knows what he's talking about. He was fully immersed in making the very case for Christianity that he now tears down. He was trained by the best, is well-read in the field, and gets all the nuances that apologists accuse pop atheists (like Harris and Dawkins) of missing."
"[O]ne of the best things that Loftus contributes to the field of atheist philosophy, which I think is required reading for everyone, on both sides of the debate, is his Outsider Test. Given that, and his thorough scope and erudition, I doubt any honest, rational, informed Evangelical can remain in the fold after reading this book. Even though any Christian could pick at bits, the overall force of his case is, IMO, invincibly fatal."
--------------------------
Dr. John Beversluis, author of C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion: "No review can begin to do justice to an ambitious book of this scope or to the sustained theological, philosophical, scientific, textual, and historical critique of Christianity that it contains. Suffice it to say at the outset that I have never read a book that presents such a massive and systematic refutation of the claims of Christianity, and I have seldom read a book that marshals evidence (from such a wide variety of disciplines) and documents its claims in such painstaking detail."
"'The Problem of Evil' (chapters twelve and thirteen)...contain one of the most penetrating and no-nonsense discussions of the problem that I have ever read. Readers who have taken the outsider test and absorb the lessons to be learned from these searching chapters, pondering Loftus's excruciatingly gruesome examples of pointless and avoidable suffering, and who then return to the proposed solutions of theists like St. Augustine, C. S. Lewis, John Hick, William P. Alston, Richard Swinburne, and, yes, even Alvin Plantinga, will find them generalized, detached, and unconvincing."
"I can pay John Loftus no higher compliment than to say that his new book is reminiscent of The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine and The Life of Jesus Critically Examined by David Friedrich Strauss. He has done for the 21st Century what they did for the 18th and the 19th. It should be required reading for every Christian."
--------------
David Mills, author of Atheist Universe: "John W. Loftus is to atheism what Tiger Woods is to golf, or what Babe Ruth was to baseball. Loftus has provided, in this superb and entertaining volume, the crown jewel of the new atheist movement. As much as I admire and enjoy Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Dennett, Loftus is, far and away, my favorite author on this riveting subject. Loftus' esteemed reputation within the freethought community is indeed richly deserved. But this book exceeded even my highest expectations."
----------------
Dr. Hector Avalos, Biblical scholar and author of The End of Biblical Studies: "I truly enjoyed this book. Why I Became an Atheist combines a dose of Augustine's Confessions with a cauldron of unremitting rationalism to yield one of the most potent antidotes to Christianity on the market today. If there is such a thing as the New Atheism, then John W. Loftus is one of the standard bearers. Loftus is a former Christian evangelical apologist who became an atheist, and he tells us why in a detail and a depth worthy of the best atheist writers today. It is a well-written, informed, and potent critique of religion and Christianity."
---------------------------
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Became-Atheist-Preacher-Christianity/dp/1591025923/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_1
Yeah, I'll second that book too. As you said, very short and very dense. He has a whole rap about how he's been teaching trig for decades and he can't figure out why they insist on making it an entire-semester course when he can teach it in an hour. Pretty cool book, but, man, do you ever have to sit down and crunch out the material on your own. Kudos to you!
By the way here's the Amazon link.
If you're interested in Catholic apologetics, try the Handbook of Catholic Apologetics by Peter Kreeft.
I went through a similar phase in my life, and while I was worried about the fact that there wasn't enough scientific evidence for Christianity, I realized that I also didn't really have scientific evidence for most of anything I believed about morality or free will. And I didn't have a particularly good explanation for why the evidence points towards the universe having a moment of creation and why the universe appears to operate by a reliable set of rules. I realized that most of my life is not lived based on the confidence intervals required for scientific experiments, and I found I could very comfortably justify my faith based on my own life experiences, the testimony of others, and the historical evidence that does exist.
One book that helped me was [The Language of God] (http://www.amazon.com/The-Language-God-Scientist-Presents/dp/1416542744/ref=cm_lmf_tit_18) by Francis Collins (leader of the Human Genome Project and current director of the National Institutes of Health who became a Christian as an adult). Even if it doesn't convince you to become a Christian, it may help you better understand your girlfriend's faith and how it is compatible with science.
You should read The Language of God by Francis Collins. It's a fascinating book that does a fantastic job of explaining some of the ideas behind that school of thought, whether or not you agree with them. It's had a tremendous influence on my interpretation of Genesis.
I would try to explain how the book changed my views on this topic, but I probably wouldn't do a good job of making it make sense on here.
BioLogos.org deals head-on with this controversy in a polite and open manner. Seriously, they rock.
The Language of God, by Francis Collins, is a great starting point for the science-end of the issue.
The Lost World of Genesis One, by John Walton, is a great starting point for the Bible-end of the issue.
The Bible Project's podcast episode Science and Faith handles this issue wonderfully, as per the norm with Tim Mackie.
There are loads of other places you could go, but these are great starting points that can lead you to other sources of information. They were very helpful for me.
The Language of God by Francis Collins.. I went to a Christian college, and this book was actually my first required reading, before classes even began.
Francis Collins is one of today's leading scientists (he headed the Human Genome Project), and also a devout Christian.
Richard Dawkins is actually a very good writer and very challenging, but from a scientific point of view.
Christopher Hitchens is also very good, a very entertaining writer and speaker. He comes from a philosophical, historical and theological point of view.
But...
Who you SHOULD be reading to counter their view is Hitchen's cancer doctor, Francis Collins. He wrote the book I'm reading on now, "The Language of God."
READ THIS BOOK!
http://www.amazon.com/The-Language-God-Scientist-Presents/dp/1416542744
He's heard every scientific and philosophical argument against God, and writes about them here.
Collins is highly respected by the "New Atheists," and writes a really good book!
I love what everyone is saying here.
Science and faith are entirely compatible. Science is studying how the world works. If you believe in a deity, then science is studying what that deity created.
For a Christian perspective on this, I recommend Francis Collin’s book The Language of God. Francis Collins is the director of the National Institutes of Health in the US and was (one of) the leading scientists on the human genome project.
Handbook of Christian Apologetics by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli.
Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig.
Someone owns Ray Comfort's book, that's how.
http://www.amazon.com/Scientific-Facts-Bible-Reasons-Supernatural/product-reviews/0882708791/ref=cm_cr_pr_hist_1?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addOneStar
Amazon has some pretty funny one star reviews.
Francis Collins has great stuff on molecular stuff. He was the head of the Human Gene Project under President Clinton back when we were still mapping it. The Language of God is a good one.
I suggest you take a look at these two AMAs from this past year:
Notable comment from the thread with further resources:
>My biggest recommendations would be:
> [The Language of God*](http://www.amazon.com/The-Language-God-Scientist-Presents/dp/1416542744/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1400689255&sr=8-1&keywords=The+language+of+God), by Francis Collins (the founder of BioLogos; a great treatise about how science and faith can work together)
I think the best thing to do here (especially if you enjoy reading) is to do some study into the good reasons why Christianity is believed to be correct. William Lane Craig's Reasonable Faith is one of the best, most cohesive defenses of the reasonability of the Christian faith I've ever read but there are plenty of other good sources too (Richard Swinburne's The Existence of God and The Coherence of Theism, J.P. Moreland and Bill Craig's Philosophical Foundations of a Christian Worldview, Paul Copan and Bill Craig's Come Let Us Reason, Craig Keener's Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts, and Alvin Plantinga's Warranted Christian Belief just to name a few).
Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig
http://www.amazon.com/Reasonable-Faith-Christian-Truth-Apologetics/dp/1433501155/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1345835288&sr=1-1&keywords=reasonable+faith+by+william+lane+craig
Just read the 1 star reviews on Amazon, some of them review the arguments quite throughly:
https://www.amazon.com/New-Proofs-Existence-God-Contributions/product-reviews/0802863833/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_hist_1?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=one_star&reviewerType=all_reviews#reviews-filter-bar
What I get from them is that it is repleat with arguments from ignorance. Basically present an unanswered question in physics and say we don't know the answer therefore god did it. This line of reasoning is never valid.
You didn't write very much, so this is a shot in the dark. Please disregard if this isn't true. You seem to want to be convinced. Frankly, I don't think its anyones job to convert or convince you. This should be your decision, based on your decisions and research. Your post comes across as intellectually lazy. You also seem to want this to be a religious experience ("want to be Atheist") with some sort of conversion. I don't think thats the way to go, making a decision based on some feeling.
Now that I got that out of the way, here is a brief overview of my story. I am a new unbeliever. What started me down this path was realizing that god is never there. He calls himself a father, husband, and brother, but he is never there. I was going through a hard time and I would ask for him to show himself to me like he did to Moses or Elijah or Paul or Ezekiel or Joshua or Gideon or Stephen. I didn't want the hard times to end, I just wanted to have a conversation with him. I wanted to see him and talk to him. I wanted a father. Can you honestly imagine a human father treating their kids like god has treated humanity? CPS would show up and put him in prison for extreme neglect. I started seriously doubting gods existence.
I thought that emotions are not always a great indicator, so I looked into the historical evidence for the resurrection. Go for the heart of the matter. I watched several debates and the Christian arguments didn't come close to standing up under the scrutiny. Here is a list of the debates I watched:
I should say that I watched these videos after I had read Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Habermas and Licona, so I was familiar with the theistic side of the debate. I was actually mostly convinced that Jesus had risen from the dead, but to be intellectually fair I wanted to hear what the other side said. The other side convinced me.
Okay, this is still a very broad question, but one of the best experts to go to on this subject (in my opinion) is professor Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary. Dr. Wallace is currently heading up the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts where he and his team are compiling all known ancient manuscripts and digitally photographing and labeling them so that other scholars can study and read them online. In the process of doing this, he and his team are discovering a number of previously unknown manuscripts (for instance, a possible 1st century fragment of Mark that will be published in scholarly journals this year).
In this talk on the subject, Dr. Wallace mentions Metzger's thorough and extensive academic-leaning work Canon of the New Testament, and the cheaper, more popular level book Reinventing Jesus co-authored by Wallace, J. Ed Komoszewski, and M. James Sawyer. You might also be in interested in Dr. Wallace's New Testament: Introductions and Outlines where he goes into both critical and tradtional examinations of the NT and their inclusion into the canon.
For just a basic outline on canonicity of the NT, most of the books of the NT had to be early (so published in or around the 1st century), had to be authored by an Apostle or someone close to the Apostles. Early on there wasn't much concern for canonicity in the early church. Most of the early church used the Septuagint as their Bible, and just didn't think of the later writings in quite the same way as we do, but they recognized their inspirational nature and valued them. Then a heretic named Marcion came along and formed his own canon. He felt that the God of the Old Testament was evil, and so decided to remove anything pro-Jewish, he reworked Luke, and did a number of other things. The early church was pretty freaked out about this, and decided that they needed to compile an authoritative list of books/letters to ward off heretical manipulation of what had already been received as inspired and authoritative.
One of the early examples we have of the early canon can be found in the Muratorian fragment dating to approx. 170 AD. It includes most of the books of the NT excluding James, Hebrews, and 1 and 2 Peter. A number of the ECFs (early church fathers... important post-Apostolic Christian writers) mention the authoritative books of the NT by name. The Gospels are mostly anonymous (there are a few internal indicators in Luke and John about who authored them), but the ECFs handed down to us the authorship of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. No other authors in the ancient writings were substituted for the name of the traditional authors. By the time Constantine came into power, and made Christianity the state religion, the canon had been closed and pretty much all the major books accepted for a long time with a little bit of disagreement between books like Revelation and Hebrews and a couple of the Pastorals. A number of councils in the 4th century pretty much settled the matter. The earliest complete manuscript copies we have date from around this period as well, so Codex Vaticanus 325-350, Codex Sinaiticus in 330-360, Codex Alexandrinus 400-440, Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus 450.
Something else should be mentioned about the Gospels. Matthew, Mark, and Luke share many commonalities with one another. So much so, that most scholars believe these books depend on one another in some way. These Gospels are called "synoptic", that is syn-together, or same and opsis-view (like where we get the word "optic" for optic nerve). John is so unlike the synoptics that he's usually handled separately from them, and is also considered later than the others.
Now these similarities aren't so surprising with Luke, Luke tells us that his book is a compilation of testimony (Luke 1:1-4), but that doesn't really explain, for instance, how Matthew is so similar to Mark.
An early church father named Eusebius quotes from an earlier Bishop named Papias about the compilation of the Gospels. Papias lived in the 1st and early 2nd century, and was a student or a hearer of the Apostle John. Papias says,
>Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took special care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. [This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark; but with regard to Matthew he has made the following statements]: Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could. [The same person uses proofs from the First Epistle of John, and from the Epistle of Peter in like manner. And he also gives another story of a woman who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is to be found in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.]
Many modern scholars don't exactly agree with Papias' rendition of things though. The prevailing theory in academia today is the source theory, and in particular the source theory called Markan Priority. Basically its argued that Mark is the simplest, and thus earliest of the synoptics, and that Matthew and Luke knew of and borrowed from Mark as a source for their books. But there also commonalities in Luke and Matthew that are not found in Mark, so its theorized that along with Mark there was probably another book or at least a common tradition shared between them that has since been lost to history. This book or sayings have been labeled "Q", which comes from the German word "quelle", which means "source". ALSO, Matthew, Mark and Luke have completely original material that they share with no other books. Now, there are some scholars (currently in the minority) that buck against this source hypothesis, that reject Q, and suggest Matthean priority. Basically Matthew was first, and Mark borrowed from Matthew, and Luke borrowed from Mark and Matthew. This is called Augustinian Hypothesis.
As for the Old Testament, that's a whole nother story. The OT was compiled throughout centuries. It should probably be kept in mind that academia for the OT is very very secular compared to that of the NT. I'm not really sure what the poster US_Hiker was on about in his reply to you, but anyways, its theorized that the books of the OT weren't written and edited in the periods they claim to be written and edited. The prevailing theory for the OT is called the Documentary Hypothesis. For a long time, the accepted hypothesis was labeled JEPD, and this stands for the following sources: Yahwist (or Jawist), Elohist, Deuteronomist, and Priestly. Its a pretty confusing theory that says that writers of the Old Testament regularly redacted and changed the order of the OT during different periods. And that the OT was compiled from approx. 950-500 BC. The theory has been manipulated and altered a number of times, especially when embarrassing archaeological finds like the silver scrolls found at Ketef Hinnom pushed some writings far further back than were expected by scholars. In my opinion, a great, very thorough, slightly academic book to read on modern theories about the Old Testament would be professor Richard S. Hess' Israelite Religions: An Archaeological and Biblical Survey.
Concerning archaeological finds, or the lack thereof for say, the Exodus, I think one's presuppositions have a lot to do with what you accept or not. If you're an unbelieving archaeologist, you might expect to find some noticeable traces of an enormous group of people wandering the desert for 40 years. So far, we can't find any. But, if you're a believer who agrees with Genesis that God provided for these people with manna from heaven that rotted away if stored up, or of clothes that miraculously never wore out, then you're not going to find a whole lot in a desert. There are a handful of scholars that also believe the entire Egyptian dating system that scholars use as a measuring tool for the pre-Roman world is off by a few dynasties. One of the better known archaeologists known for his new chronology of the Egyptian period is egyptologist David Rohl. His ideas are currently on the fringe, but seem to be gaining some traction. His book Pharaohs and Kings: A Biblical Quest is a beautiful and very interesting book on the subject.
Ok, so, sorry that was so long, but like I said, this is a very very broad subject. If you have any questions, let me know.
Have a terrific day!
https://www.amazon.com/Precalculus-Mathematics-Nutshell-Geometry-Trigonometry/dp/1592441300 is a good start. Reading through the principia mathematica could also be useful. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi%C3%A6_Naturalis_Principia_Mathematica
Hey OP, I'm going to respond to your last question first because I was an Atheist who converted. One thing off the bat is that cultivating faith is exactly that, cultivation. You cannot water a seed one night and the next morning ask why the plant isn't there. My faith took a long time to develop into something substantial. I did a lot of reading.
I'd really recommend The Language of God by Francis Collins to start. Collins helped the human genome project and is a Christian, he lays out a lot of the basic arguments for God's existence in this book. He's no dummy and I found it to be a great read.
Once you accept that there is most likely a God, the question becomes what God? As luck would have it, the Jews, Christians, and Muslims all worship the same God as revealed to Abraham. Historically it is a fact a man known as Jesus lived and taught. You could say that he was a mad men, but people followed him. If Jesus did resurrect then Christianity itself would have died. You could make the argument that many people simply lied about him being resurrected but you would have to wonder why they would do so when they had nothing to gain but persecution. This religion grew and 2000 years later is still strong. That's impressive.
The old testament laws were part of the old law for Jews which Jesus replaced with a new law meant for all peoples.
Precalculus Mathematics in a Nutshell: Geometry, Algebra, Trigonometry by George F. Simmons
There is an extremely good book by Simmons. It's very well-written, short, and has Simmons special touch to it:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1592441300/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_t1_XPG9AbMK7R8KC
Simmons is an extremely good writer. I'd also recommend to check Lang's Basic Mathematics.
If you're scoring 25's everywhere, you have a lot of content you need to learn.
Most of the 3rd party books are crap. Sorry. They are. I've read almost all of them, and it's filler.
I like Webster's grammar: https://amzn.com/0375719679
+understanding the rhetorical questions by using practice tests and making your own steps
Cheap math book: https://amzn.com/1592441300
Reading: Man, I've covered this on other posts
Science: a basic understanding of scientific concepts + practice
A 7-point increase is not easy on your own, but you can do it if you make a study plan and stick to it. You're going to have to search out why you don't get questions right if you don't understand the explanations. You're going to have to hold yourself accountable to your own knowledge level. Doing something that hard on your own is extremely difficult, but, if you can do it, you will be supremely prepared for college and will be a very successful person.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not in any way trying to discourage you from doing this on your own. The fact that you're on this subreddit and asking for help already shows that you are a lot more mature than your peers. Make a plan; stick to it; and re-evaluate it periodically.
If you go content-driven (which is the evidence-based way to increase your score the most), you're not going to get linear score increases. You might study for a month and get 1 point. Some weird click moment happens when things get easier and recall of topics starts to happen more. But isn't it like that for almost everything?
I love Ravi Zacharias and Timothy Keller.
I've read this book that gives five different views on appologetics:
http://www.amazon.com/Five-Views-Apologetics-Steven-Cowan/dp/0310224764
Here are the 5 apologists from the book:
William Lane Craig (PhD, University of Birmingham, England) is research professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, Biola University and lives in Marietta, GA.
Gary Habermas (PhD, Michigan State University) is distinguished professor and chair of the department of philosophy and director of the MA program in apologetics at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia.
Paul D. Feinberg, (ThD, Dallas Theological Seminary) was professor of biblical and systematic theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.
Dr. John Frame serves as J.D. Trimble Chair of Systematic Theology and Philosophy at Reformed Theological Seminary in Oviedo, Florida.
Kelly James Clark (PhD, Notre Dame) is associate professor of philosophy at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
The first words of this book:
"I Hope You Are Skeptical"...
http://www.amazon.com/Scientific-Facts-Bible-Reasons-Supernatural/dp/0882708791/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1345311940&sr=8-5&keywords=Ray+comfort+bible
comes with a short preview of the book
You can buy it yourself for around $6
If anyone knows of a list of the facts and their "proof" to them I am sure we would all love to see it posted.
This is an interesting argument, one that Francis Collins calls the "signpost" argument - that the fact that we have this tendency for belief is evidence (not proof, but evidence) the G-d wants us to seek him. Fair enough. But it doesn't follow that our god-sense evolved for a purpose, let alone that purpose (where's the selection pressure? Who's failing to reproduce for lack of a god-sense?).
An alternative, and I think more parsimonious, explanation is that belief in a higher power is a side-effect of certain psychological capacities that, in the proper context, are highly adaptive. In particular, I'm talking about theory of mind: our ability to perceive other people as thinking agents, like us but independent of us. Robert McCauley gives a detailed treatment of it in his book Why Religion is Natural and Science is Not, but this article is much quicker and to the point: we apply theory of mind where it doesn't belong, and the consequence is religious belief.
Thanks for the advice. I understand what you are saying, but we are both coming from a position where we have a need for mutual understanding. It is her desire to better understand what I think and vice versa.
She actually opened the topic by suggesting I read
The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief
she also said she would be willing to read anything I suggest.
EDIT: I think I am Dyslexic I always put the "(" on the text and the "[" on the link!
> Dinosaurs contradict creation theory.
Possibly. But many branches of Christianity do not endorse YEC.
> Evolution contradicts 'god made humans to be above all others', since our ascendance is based on (essentially) chance.
For some this is true. But again, many Christians are theistic evolutionists.
> Other planets and the nigh-certainty of extraterrestrial life contradicts 'god made earth/the entire universe. The (measurable!) Big Bang theory already does that though, of course.
I don't see the contradiction unless you mean that it contradicts that God made the universe specifically for human beings. In that case, this is a point of contention that was shared by many early natural philosophers, even non-Christians. The Ptolemaic geocentric system of the universe was valued because it put human beings at the center (among other reasons). But, this seems to be a problem less about Christianity and more about human importance in general.
> If Christianity is not the first religion, it suggests that people will make up origin stories to comfort themselves, and Christianity is just one of them. This is of course a different branch of science (anthropology I think?), but a valid one afaik.
Good point. There is a reason why anthropology has one of the lowest proportions of religious people of the scientific disciplines. But, a religious person could argue that people generate origin stories so as to fill a God-instilled void in themselves (I am not making this argument, I'm just saying that it is a possible one).
> Furthermore, if God made the world and everything in it, why would he a) make other religions; and b) let people carry on for thousands of years without knowing about God, and in fact believing in the wrong gods. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Good point, but this is venturing beyond science into theology.
> Now I agree every single one of those points can be refuted if you try hard enough. The point is though, you have to try.
In order to refute the points above, you have to decide that the first christians were flat-out wrong in taking the bible factually and that it was always meant to be allegorical.
Good points, and this is why some Christians have such difficulty with certain scientific discoveries. If one holds a literal interpretation of the Bible, it is much harder to reconcile modern science with Christianity. But, is this a flaw in Christianity itself or a flaw in certain human doctrines about Christianity? Personally, I do not see logical inconsistency with people who adjust their doctrine according to new scientific discoveries. In the book I linked, several of the authors discuss how Christianity helped shape modern science, but the inverse can also be true; science can help shape Christian theology. Isaac Newton, who is "Mr. Science" for many and often used as the posterboy for atheism, invoked the concept and several attributes of the Christian God to explain several of his scientific findings in his Letters and General Scholium. But, he also made theological arguments about the nature of Christ and the timeline of Christ's return based on his scientific beliefs. Adapting one's beliefs according to new evidence is never a bad thing in science or theology.
> I could also bring up the fact there are other religions in the world today, and THEY all claim to be the only one. Or the fact that kids who are taught things at an early age internalise them. Or the fact that there is no such thing as a miracle with evidence and that they haven't happened since the advent of portable cameras.
These are interesting arguments, but again, they are theological (or at least philosophical) ones, not scientific ones.
> There are other arguments of course. But I think it comes down to this: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claim of an omnipotent being in the sky watching us, leaving us entirely alone, and judging us when we die is an incredibly extraordinary claim with an equally extraordinary amount of evidence and logic stacked against it - and frankly, not much for it.
If you, claiming to believe in science, can see all the evidence and still believe in God...there's a problem. They are mutually exclusive.
Here, you hit on the primary conflict that people perceive between science and Christianity. How do we find truth? In post-Baconian natural philosophy/science, evidence is seen as the gold standard for establishing truth. But, what is evidence? For a data scientist, evidence might be a statistically significant difference between two populations. For an evolutionary biologist, evidence might be certain aspects of the fossil record. In general terms, one may consider evidence to be the end result of an inductive line of reasoning or a correctly predicted outcome from a hypothetico-deductive reasoning. But, as it turns out, even these last two are not "proof" in the traditional sense (see The Problem of Induction and Hypothetic-deductive model Discussion. Many Christians also see evidence of God in nature. Francis Collins, for example, is a brilliant scientist who played a pivotal role in the Human Genome Project and is the director of the National Institutes of Health, and he sees evidence for God in evolution The Language of God. Does Collins offer evidence? You may not think so, but it is worth thinking about how his account is fundamentally different from "scientific evidence." Evidence is not a bad criterion to use for establishing truth, but there are many kinds of evidence, and very few forms of evidence provide logical proof. Now, I am not trying to discredit the value of a scientific approach for understanding truth; of course, such a method has proven to be incredibly useful for understanding and manipulating our world. However, I am suggesting that science, at least in the eyes of many people, does not hold sole authority over truth.
>I don't deny the profound effects christianity has had on the human race, including the development of science, literature, art and contribution to law and government. I just don't think it's real, nor do I think it's possible to logically reconcile belief in god with science
The great part about this debate is that you alone have sole jurisdiction over your own beliefs, and I certainly am not trying to convince you to think in another way. But, it is sometimes worth thinking about why so many people see science and Christianity in a different light.
I certainly understand the insistence that science and Christianity are fundamentally incompatible, but I hope that I have given you a few points to consider. If you are interested in this topic, it may be worth reading more about the relationship between science and Christianity. It's a great opportunity to be exposed to new ideas and to avoid falling into the historical fallacies that both Christians and non-Christians are prone to.
As I see it, here's the core problem: The Bible isn't a scientific document that can be easily parsed into data, despite creationists and atheists wanting to treat it as such to raise it up and tear it down, respectively. In reality, there's little reason to think that humankind is capable of a full understanding of the spiritual dimension. It's even less reasonable to hold the Bible accountable for being scientifically accurate when such talk would have gone WAY over the heads of the people the books and letters were written directly to, who knew nothing of astronomy, electricity, etc, etc, etc.
It's fine to focus on the the absurdity of the creationist approach by pointing out scientific issues, but the Skeptic's Annotated Bible goes overwhelmingly too far and lists tons of "contradictions" that are actually paradoxes, antimonies, misinterpretations, or mistranslations (even more prevalent since the SAB's source is a an 18th-century King James Bible).
If you want some interesting reading on the subject, check out The Language of God, written by one of the heads of the Human Genome Project, who sees the Bible and nature as two books through which we see reflections of God's truth. At the heart of things, he states that "science is not threatened by God; it is enhanced" and "God is most certainly not threatened by science; He made it all possible."
You might be interested in this book https://smile.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744?sa-no-redirect=1
Its written by a scientist on their story of coming to Christianity. And by "a scientist", I mean none other than Francis Collins himself.
Josh McDowell is great
>I guess it might be more appropriate to ask why you believe Christianity is the right one.
Many books have been written on the subject. Might I recommend Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig.
But if you'd rather have my personal point of view, I believe Christianity is true because of the authentic testimony of the bible and Christians everywhere, combined with my own 'personal experiences'. The holy spirit imbues me with a sense of rightness that cant be adequately explained. All these things and more are why I believe Jesus to be the way the truth and the life. Why do you believe that he is not?
Another excellent book is The Language of God by Dr. Francis Collins (former director of the Human Genome Project and current director of the National Institute of Health).
Upvoted, and I wanted to add that Francis is now the director of the NIH. There are many kinds of Christians, and some of them definitely believe that science is good and we are supposed to use our rationality to investigate the natural world.
He also wrote this book which might give some insight to anyone interested in how he views the relationship between faith and science. I don't agree with him on every particular, but I do think that theists of his stripe are a far cry from the fundamentalists and the God-hates-fags wackos.
Hey OP if you are interested in reading a well put together presentation you could do worse than looking at Evidence that demands a Verdict.
The author was a legal student who set out to disprove the resurrection, but ended up converting because of what he found. It has multiple sources and while it has a Christian bias, it collects nearly every argument you will hear to support Christian ideas in a cogent readable way.
Here's a good start: [I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist](
http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Have-Enough-Faith-Atheist/dp/1581345615).
I too was raised Lutheran, and I too am a man of science, logic, fact. I've been convinced by the evidence and do not struggle with trust in God.
There is hard evidence out there, ie: Josh McDowell's "Evidence that Demands a Verdict"
And in the philosophic and scientific origins cases in the first book I linked. What also compels me is the case against biogenesis. I have never been able to accept the agnostic argument for how life arises from non-life. Most accept it on the basis of materialism, but materialism is an unproved assertion. And knowing something about chemistry and the function of even the simplest cells, there's no way life can come from the primordial soup they want to imagine it came from.
I also recommend Classic Christianity to escape many of the doctrinal errors you, like me, were likely raised in via Lutheranism (ie: in and out of fellowship via sin, etc.).
Anyway, good luck with your quest for truth. You'll find answers.
Which James White? I hear good things about Dr. James Emery White, though I have never read any of his works.
This James White is a different story. He's not really a "doctor", all his doctoral degrees come from an unaccredited institution. I haven't interacted with his work too much, mostly because he comes across as a bit arrogant and confrontational in the works I have read. His apologetic work often strikes me as disingenuous, uncharitable, and often pseudo-historical towards those he is arguing against, especially Roman Catholics.
I do have quite a few books I would recommend:
First, I would read the following:
The Heidelberg Catechism, The Belgic Confession, and the Canons of Dort
These are collectively referred to as the "Three Forms of Unity", and are the baseline documents for continental Reformed (Calvinist) churches. In addition, I recommend the following:
Good Introductions
Letters to a Young Calvinist by James K.A. Smith
Calvinism in the Las Vegas Airport by Richard J. Mouw
What is Reformed Theology? by R.C. Sproul
A Little Book on the Christian Life by John Calvin
Digging Deeper
Pilgrim Theology by Michael Horton
The Christian Faith by Michael Horton
The Institutes of the Christian Religion in the 1536, 1541, or 1559 editions by John Calvin. Also available online here
Reformed Dogmatics by Herman Bavinck
Systematic Theology by Louis Berkhof
As well anything by the following authors:
Modern: R.C. Sproul, Michael Horton, James K.A. Smith, Cornelius Plantinga, Alvin Plantinga, John Piper, and Tim Keller.
1800s & 1900s: J. Gresham Machen, Herman Bavinck, Abraham Kuyper, G.C. Berkouwer, and B.B. Warfield
Pre-1800s: Jonathan Edwards, John Calvin, Theodore Beza, and John Knox
I'd recommend against Barth's Church Dogmatics unless you are quite well versed in theology, and like reading long and sometimes confusing sentences.
Interested in Church Fathers?
Oden's Classical Christianity is pretty decent. It tries to break down the typical "systematic theology" headings using the early church (and some later ones). Not perfect, but there isn't one I've read yet that beats it.
Augustine's Confessions is a must if you haven't read it yet. Its autobiographical yet very spiritual and insightful at the same time.
Chrysostom's On the Priesthood is a great writing that can apply to anyone, not just those seeking ordination.
Athanasius' On the Incarnation focuses on the person of Christ, and what it meant for God to become man.
Basil's On the Holy Spirit is a great exposition on not just how the Holy Spirit is argued to be part of the Trinity, but also Christ. Very great reading for people questioning it or curious about it.
Reformation Fathers?
Peter Martyr Vermigli's Predestination and Justification is great. John Calvin in a letter said Vermigli had a better understanding of Predestination than he did, which is funny since Calvin is known for predestination today.
Martin Luther's Theological Works has most of his important works, including Bondage of the Will.
Richard Muller's Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 4 vol. but try not to pay $325 for it. Its out of print so might be a bit hard to find for a reasonable price. If you are able to find it though, it's a gold mine. Also check out other of his books.
More contemporary?
Abraham Kuyper's Lectures on Calvinism is a classic on the Reformed faith.
Herman Bavinck's Abridged Reformed Dogmatics is great, and in my opinion one of the best Systematic Theologies available. More of a Dutch Reformed than Presby bent, but essentially the same.
Karl Barth's Dogmatics in Outline is a very abridged version of Church Dogmatics, and would recommend it over the original source unless you have a lot of free time or want to be a Barth scholar.
Thats what I can think of off the top of my head. If you have other specific ones I can find other stuff.
You should read this book.
Check out Dr. Brant Pitre's [The Case for Jesus] (https://www.amazon.com/Case-Jesus-Biblical-Historical-Evidence/dp/0770435483) and Nabeel Qureshi's books [Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus] (https://www.amazon.com/Seeking-Allah-Finding-Jesus-Christianity/dp/0310527236) and [No God but One: Allah or Jesus?] (https://www.amazon.com/God-but-One-Investigates-Christianity/dp/0310522552/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=RQKED6JFR7154CQFB370)
As for Bible difficulties, Trent Horn's [Hard Sayings] (https://www.amazon.com/Hard-Sayings-Catholic-Answering-Difficulties/dp/1941663745/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1492022538&sr=8-1&keywords=hard+sayings).
Also give [this] (https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-great-and-enduring-heresy-of-mohammed) and [this] (https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/asking-the-right-question-about-islams-god). You can also browse that site, as it will help.
Christianity rises or falls on the resurrection. Start [here] (http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/resurrection-evidence.htm) and [here] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ErnJF_nwBk&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TUYymBPce08oyuhnHLLkR_B) for some info on it; NT Wright has a book on it that is supposed to be good but I haven't read it.
I understand that there might not be many Christians in your area, but you might want to find a local parish priest and talk to him. He can give you a lot of advice. Also, feel free to PM me as I am also a convert (not from Islam, however).
I'm just going to leave this link here, it's an incredibly insightful and we'll handled book by someone who was in your position:
https://www.amazon.com/Seeking-Allah-Finding-Jesus-Christianity/dp/0310527236
God is certainly way more complex than humans make him out to be. But if there is a personal creator which actually wishes to communicate with us can you blame him for putting it in terms we could actually understand? I don't think Paul was dumb by any means but nuclear fusion would be a bit above any 1st century Roman citizen. Besides, the purposes are different.
The purposes of science is to tell us how this natural world ticks.
The purpose of Christian scripture is to tell us about an invisible God and his plan which works through this natural world as well as the intangible elements of our existence.
I would like to share the work of a Christian scientist with you, who, like you sees the beauty in the natural world, with similar awe as yours. "The Language of God" by Francis S. Collins, Director of the National Institutes of Health.
Francis Collins has a pretty decent book called The Language of God, though he mostly reiterates CS Lewis.
But it's an interesting read as he was the head of the Human Genome Project, and made an appeal to fundies to stop tying Christianity to the anchor of Creationism.
check out this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins and his book: http://www.amazon.com/The-Language-God-Scientist-Presents/dp/0743286391
I haven't read it myself, but I have always wanted to.
Regarding your second question, some would argue (rightly, I believe) that a literal interpretation requires analyzing the text as it would have been understood for its contemporary audience. This requires translating culture along with the obvious language translation. The ancient cultures (not just Jews, but Akkadians, Sumerians, Egyptians, etc.) were much more concerned with existence/creation from a functional perspective (something exists because it has purpose), in contrast to modern thoughts that they deal with the material nature.
I'm presently reading The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate by John Walton, and would definitely recommend getting your hands on it if this topic interests you. While you can take this with a grain of salt, Walton doesn't appear be using an escapist argument to avoid disagreement between other "literal" (e.g. 6,000 year old earth) interpretations of Genesis and modern science. He makes a compelling case for his form of literal interpretation, and the Christian/genome-scientist Francis Collins has come out in support of it.
I am glad that this was useful in some way.
While I cannot speak on behalf of those who oppose evolution, I was raised attending a private Christian school that taught me (in my science books) why they believed evolution was a scientifically unsound theory. They attacked all science that objected to a young earth. I was taught that isometric dating produces inconsistent results (such as producing dates thousands of years off on different ends of a fossil). They attacked the astronomy of the big bang expansion as speculative and inconclusive (as the big bang is still hardly agreed upon today). They basically take all of the evidence as circumstantial and inconclusive. They search for evidence to establish an alternative scientific narrative (things that corroborate a literal interpretation of the Bible).
If you are interested in understanding a fundamentalist's rationalizations, the fundamentalist "bible" of apologetics is probably New Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell. As far as I know, it contains every possible justification for a fundamentalist/literlaist interpretation of the Bible.
P.S. For those of you who are now worried about my scientific education, fear not. This was my Jr. High experience. I went on to public High School where I was taught the opposite.
Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell.
Hundred of authors spanning hundred of years, yes. The bible could have been written and then re-written to collaborate and re-infirm what it says.
It could have been edited. More to the point. It was edited. And you could NEVER know for sure the truth of it. That is why there is multiple bibles, saying different places, with different times for the same described event.
I read this just recently. It had some really good information in it. With sources to back up key points. And I looked. But. There were holes and points missed and avoided in arguments about times and facts. That there are other books and scriptures that have not been included in the bible because it was inconvienent for the Church at the time. These holes and peaces of information that are missing tell the reader to "Go on faith".
How do you have faith in something when the book that gives direction, has so many contradictions.
Here bake this cake.
3 eggs
1 1/4 cups of water
1 box of cake mix (any kind)
1/3 cup of cooking oil
Procedure:
1 Take your mixing bowl, open the box of cake mix and pour it in the mixing bowl.
2 Take the three eggs, crack them and put them in the mixing bowl.
2 Feed one egg to the dog. And use the other two for breakfast.
3 Take 1 1/4 cups of water and put them in the mixing bowl.
3 Take the 1 1/4 cups of water and drink it.
4 Take the 1/3 cups of cooking oil and put them in the mixing bowl also.
5 Mix with mixer (or by hand)
5 Don't mix anything.
6 Pour the mix in the 13'' by 9'' pan, after greased.
7 Put the 13''by 9'' pan in the oven on 350 for 25 - 30.
8 After baked let it cool off for at LEAST 10 MIN.
8 Bake for another 15 minuets.
9 After it cools down you may decorate with any cake decorations.
Edit: I see you read that book too! I'll hammer threw it a find some points!
Oh man. Where do I begin?
It started with Edward Feser. Then Aquinas.
I recently compiled my 'short list' of books that were foundational for a Master's:
Start here:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0764807188/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/019925995X/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1
Then go here:
https://www.amazon.com/Story-Christianity-Vol-Church-Reformation/dp/006185588X
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0061855898/ref=pd_sbs_14_t_0?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=T5D86TV1MTCSQAYZ4GHR
G.K. Chesterton is always a good supplement (Heretics and Orthodoxy):
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00ALKPW4S/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1
Bible Study:
https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Testament-Anchor-Reference-Library/dp/0385247672/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1477868333&sr=1-1&keywords=raymond+brown
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1585169420/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0809147807/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1
(Jewish perspective on NT): https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195297709/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1
After you've gotten through these (or maybe interspersed), get into de Chardin -- but be careful, because he toes the line into heresy with the noosphere stuff.
Then, start reading the theoretical physicist priests in our faith, Stanley Jaki, for example.
And this. This.
Finally, try to muddle through Spitzer. These guys have more smarts in their little finger than I will ever have.
Edit: I refreshed the thread and saw that you've already found Feser. Excellent. Are you familiar with John C. Wright as well? Sci-fi-writer-former-atheist-now-traditionalist-Catholic.
I'm interested in any science + metaphysics books you've come across too. . .
One can start with Reinventing Jesus and the The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus
Part 3: Book recommendations:
If you want to dig deep into this topic, here are some book recommendations. Perhaps you would want to read N.T. Wright's Christian Origins and the Question of God series (this is very heavy, scholarly reading). N.T. Wright is the foremost scholar on the New Testament and this is possibly the most thorough literature on the historical Jesus, early Christianity and the Apostle Paul:
https://www.logos.com/product/37361/christian-origins-and-the-question-of-god-series
Anything by N.T. Wright is well worth reading (Simply Christian and Surprised by Hope would be good introductions). Likewise, anything by Ravi Zacharias.
The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona: https://www.amazon.ca/Case-Resurrection-Jesus-Gary-Habermas/dp/0825427886
Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus: A Devout Muslim Encounters Christianity by Nabeel Qureshi: https://www.amazon.com/Books-Nabeel-Qureshi/s?ie=UTF8&page=1&rh=n%3A283155%2Cp_27%3ANabeel%20Qureshi
No God But One: Allah or Jesus?: A Former Muslim Investigates the Evidence for Islam and Christianity by Nabeel Qureshi: https://www.amazon.com/God-but-One-Investigates-Christianity/dp/0310522552/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1517050609&sr=1-2&refinements=p_27%3ANabeel+Qureshi
On Guard by William Lane Craig: https://www.amazon.ca/Guard-William-Lane-Craig/dp/1434764885/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1526542104&sr=8-1&keywords=on+guard+william+lane+craig
The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus by Lee Strobel: https://www.amazon.ca/Case-Christ-Journalists-Personal-Investigation/dp/0310339308
Bonus reading: Heaven by Randy Alcorn: https://www.amazon.ca/Heaven-Randy-Alcorn/dp/0842379428/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1526542237&sr=1-1&keywords=randy+alcorn+heaven
Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis: https://www.amazon.ca/Mere-Christianity-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652926
Read anything by G.K. Chesterton, especially, The Everlasting Man
Answers to Common Objections and Questions:
Jesus’ Resurrection and Christian Origins: http://ntwrightpage.com/2016/07/12/jesus-resurrection-and-christian-origins/
The Evidence for Jesus: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/jesus-of-nazareth/the-evidence-for-jesus/
The Resurrection of Jesus: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/jesus-of-nazareth/the-resurrection-of-jesus/
The Resurrection of Jesus Christ as Christianity's Centerpiece: http://www.cslewisinstitute.org/The_Resurrection_of_Jesus_Christ_as_Christianitys_Centerpiece_FullArticle?fbclid=IwAR0oE22vtBvR2u--R78tSyW-51OpIbWBfWDNH2Ep8miBc9W6uUJMwMsz0yk
Origin, Meaning, Morality and Destiny: http://rzim.org/just-thinking/think-again-deep-questions/
Accompanying video to the link above: Why is Christianity True?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5qJPZySo7A
How Do You Know Christianity Is the One True Way of Living? | Abdu Murray: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14ze_SVg-0E&app=desktop
What makes Christianity unique among the world’s religions? Verifiability is a Christian Distinctive: https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/verifiability-is-a-christian-distinctive/
Is Jesus God? (Feat. Craig, Strobel, Habermas, Licona, Qureshi...): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dLoKCyDDAg&app=desktop
How Can Understanding Eyewitness Testimony Help Us Evaluate the Gospels?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tCDDsPXQSQ&app=desktop
Historical Evidence for the Resurrection - Can a Scientist Believe in the Resurrection? - Nabeel Qureshi: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hD7w1Uja2o
Questioning Jesus: Critically Considering Christian Claims with Dr. Nabeel Qureshi: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UpuEDp4ObA
Did Jesus Rise From the Dead? | Yale 2014 | William Lane Craig: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NAOc6ctw1s&app=desktop
Historical Resurrection of Christ?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0Dc01HVlaM
Are The New Testament Documents Historically Credible?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgdsIaqFAp4
Are the Gospels Accurate?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxrDy_G8h88
(Answer to the common objection: ‘the gospels are anonymous’)
Gospel Authorship—Who Cares?: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/question-answer/P40/gospel-authorshipwho-cares
What is the Evidence That Jesus Appeared Alive After His Death?: https://youtu.be/96WIa3pZISE
On Extra-Biblical Sources for Jesus' Post-Mortem Appearances: https://youtu.be/-Dbx7PPIIsQ
Did Jesus Rise From The Dead Or Was It A Hoax By His Followers?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aELRKdxV7Wk
Follow up to the previous video: Did Jesus rise from the dead, or was it hallucinations by his followers?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29224I3x_M0&feature=youtu.be
Did the Disciples Invent the Resurrection?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOHUWsNDPZc
Facts to show the Resurrection is not fiction, by William Lane Craig: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AduPVkqbis
Did Paul actually see the risen Jesus, or did he simply have some sort of vision?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yNdynwqtWI&t
What Do You Mean By ‘Literal?’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxQpFosrTUk
Evidence For Jesus' Resurrection: https://youtu.be/4iyxR8uE9GQ?t=1s
Death, Resurrection and Afterlife: https://youtu.be/HXAc_x_egk4?t=1s
Did Jesus Really Rise From The Dead?: https://youtu.be/KnkNKIJ_dnw?t=1s
4 Historical Facts That Prove Jesus Really Did Rise From The Dead: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmKg62GDqF4
What About Pre-Christ Resurrection Myths?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrCYVk6xrXg
Jesus and Pagan Mythology: Is Jesus A Copied Myth or Real Person?: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/jesus-and-pagan-mythology/
Zeitgeist - Is Jesus A Myth: https://alwaysbeready.com/zeitgeist-the-movie
Did Greco-Roman myths influence the Gospel accounts of the resurrection of Jesus?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pt9rlG7ABo&app=desktop
Does the Resurrection Require Extraordinary Evidence?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLN30A0vmlo
Moral Argument For God’s Existence: How Can A Good God Allow Evil? Does Life Have Meaning?: https://youtu.be/it7mhQ8fEq0
Are there Inconsistencies Between the Four Gospels?: https://youtu.be/sgdsIaqFAp4
Why Are There Differences in the Resurrection Accounts?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtz2lVGmXFI
Don't the Gospels Contradict One Another?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gt9kCwttVY
Why Differences Between the Gospels Demonstrate Their Reliability: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zimP8m3_hCk
Why the Gospels Can Differ, Yet Still Be Reliable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=An5wU2hxIfM
Four Reasons the New Testament Gospels Are Reliable: http://coldcasechristianity.com/2015/four-reasons-the-new-testament-gospels-are-reliable/
Find Contradictions in the Bible All You Want: https://www.thepoachedegg.net/2019/05/apologetics-find-contradictions-in-the-bible-all-you-want.html
The Case for the Historicity and Deity of Jesus: https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/the-case-for-the-historicity-and-deity-of-jesus/
Bart Ehrman is one of the world's most renowned ancient historians/New Testament scholars, and he is an atheist. Listen to what he has to say on the matter of Jesus' existence: The Historical Jesus DID Exist - Bart Ehrman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43mDuIN5-ww
Bart D Ehrman About the Historical Jesus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6U6TJ4cwSo
Extra-Biblical evidence: In addition to the gospel accounts and the letters from the Apostle Paul, we have sources outside the New Testament with references to Jesus in the writings of Josephus, Tacitus, Thallus, the Jewish Talmud, etc:
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2017/is-there-any-evidence-for-jesus-outside-the-bible/
Is There Extrabiblical Evidence About Jesus' Life?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzP0Kz9eT_U&app=desktop
How do we know Jesus was really who he said he was?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ksvhHEoMLM&app=desktop
YouTube Channels to browse:
William Lane Craig - ReasonableFaithOrg: https://www.youtube.com/user/ReasonableFaithOrg?app=desktop
drcraigvideos: https://www.youtube.com/user/drcraigvideos?app=desktop
Ravi Zacharias - Ravi Zacharias International Ministries: https://www.youtube.com/user/rzimmedia?app=desktop
J. Warner Wallace - Cold-Case Christianity with J. Warner Wallace: https://www.youtube.com/user/pleaseconvinceme/featured?disable_polymer=1
The Bible Project: https://www.youtube.com/user/jointhebibleproject
Unbelievable?: https://www.youtube.com/user/PremierUnbelievable
David Wood - Acts17Apologetics: https://www.youtube.com/user/Acts17Apologetics
Nabeel Qureshi - NQMinistries: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCepxnLs6GWAxAyI8m2U9s7A/featured?disable_polymer=1
Randy Alcorn - Eternal Perspective Ministries with Randy Alcorn: https://www.youtube.com/user/eternalperspectives?app=desktop
Frank Turek - Cross Examined: https://www.youtube.com/user/TurekVideo
Brian Holdsworth: https://www.youtube.com/user/holdsworthdesign
>our religion, ie: for Judaism
I was under the impression that you didn't believe the Torah. Do you?
>Put up or shut up.
I'm not sure how you would like me to, but I'll list some resources below. If you would rather delve into it by having a strict dialogue between the two of us, that's cool too. I may not be able to respond quickly every time, depending on how this carries forth, but I'll do what I can. As you mentioned, your soul is "at stake and all that."
Gary Habermas and N.T. Wright are the top two resurrection scholars. Michael Licona is also a leading scholar on the resurrection debate. Philosophers such as Richard Swinburne and Antony Flew have even shown their faces on the scene as well.
Books
Presentations
Debates
Gary Habermas, William Lane Craig, and Michael Licona are the most frequent debaters on the Christian side, and Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier are the most frequent debaters on the non-Christian side. Habermas, Craig, and/or Licona have debated the following (possibly) recognizable names on this issue: Bart Ehrman, Richard Carrier, Antony Flew, John Shelby Spong, Gerd Ludemann, Shabir Ally, Arif Ahmed, John Dominic Crossan, Robert M. Price, and Dan Barker.
YouTube is great for finding those debates. There are also, of course, dialogues in book form.
>if you don't like my tone
I'm actually enjoying your tone, haha
That's a very tortured reading of just one of the stories of a post-resurrection appearance.
I was thinking about what you said about us deserving more proof. Frankly, I think we've got far more than we have any right to when compared to previous generations.
In Jesus' day, only a few thousand people saw him work a miracle. Only a thousand at most saw him after the resurrection. In all of human history, seeing the supernatural has been confined to a relative handful of people.
Today, though, every single person in the developed world has access to
No, we don't get to see Jesus in the flesh -- walking on water or otherwise -- but we've got more than any generation since his has had. Far more. And we're going to be held responsible for what we did with that privilege.
Nein das habe ich nicht geschrieben. Mir gefällt die Idee aber gut und ich kann nur jedem empfehlen dem historischen Gehalt der entsprechenden Quellen mal gründlich auf den Zahn zu fühlen und sich nicht allein von populären, auf den ersten Blick überzeugenden Meinungen leiten zu lassen (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10).
>To me the Jews not eating pork or meat or touching money on the sabbath did not really translate to simple hand washing after touching a sick person or before eating but maybe they did so it's a good argument.
This was hardly the extent of it! They went much farther than we do today, with efforts that would seem extreme, in order to avoid even beaing near uncleanliness. They made women who were on their periods live outside the city for the duration of their menses + a few days, lepers couldn't be touched or gotten close to, they used separate hands for toilet dealings and eating, washed their hands fastidiously before and after eating, and took full baths at least weekly! Additionally, if you so much went near a building that had a dead body in it, you were unclean for a week! Even today traditional Judaism has some pretty strict handwashing laws.
>I'll have to revisit GENESYS as it's been a while but clearly woman was not made from a man's rib and man was not made from dirt like pottery. The person who was divinely inspired to write that in my view was not inspired enough to convey truth as to how we came about. But I'll let it slide.
There are types of truth, and scientific truth is certainly one of these. However, it's not the only kind of truth. Philosophy, for example, contains truths that cannot be discovered through the scientific method. Theological truth is another kind of truth. So most Catholics would hold that the story of Eve from Adam's rib holds theological truth, if not scientific truth. The Bible was never intended to be a science textbook. Just as you wouldn't use the rules of grammar to learn about biology, it's silly to use the laws of biology to learn about theology.
>When I was in the military we had one hour of sleep per day in basic training. After four days many people including myself started having hallucinations. One friend from church saw all the leaves glowing at night and felt it was a spiritual experience. But we had many dumb hallucinations like seeing a dog in the tent that wasn't there and seeing midget soldiers marching. That combined with learning about how the eye and visual software in our brain works helped me realize a few things. We can't always trust what we see or even what we hear or even what we feel (like the sensation of movement in a car wash). What's more likely? My friend had a spiritual experience or just another hallucination like several of us had? So what's more likely? That Paul heard the voice of god or had a hallucination in the desert?
Indeed. Hallucinations are very different from genuine spiritual experience. I can't say I've ever had the latter. Having also undergone some serious sleep deprivation, I have had hallucinations, though, and I can see how it would be easy for undiscerning folks to conflate the two. However, we also don't discount the possibility of something being both at once. Like with scientific and theological truth, a given pattern of neurology can be either/or, or both/and. I want to make it clear, though, that I'm not advocating for "praying your depression away" or anything like that! I have a degree in psychology, and before I decided to become a housewife to my awesome kiddos, I really wanted to continue my study into neuropathology and psychological disorders and their mechanisms.
>I've come to learn of many charlatans that pretend to heal people (e.g. Benny Hinn filled up a stadium where I lived). So what's more likely? That a man two thousand years ago healed the blind or that people were deceived and stories were told and miscommunication and exaggerations were propagated as people passed these stories down. The first account of Jesus in writing is from 70 years after they happened!!
I've read an excellent book on this topic called The Case for the Resurrection. My question back to you, then, is this: Given that this lie was likely to get people captured, tortured, and literally devoured by lions for profit, why would the original Gospel authors persist in it after watching so many people get martyred? I mean, if I saw someone claim to be God and heal the blind, and I knew I was likely to get shot for mentioning it, I'd have to have a damned good reason to continue telling people that He's right. Either the authors were collectively uniquely masochistic, were all incredibly stupid, or there was a good reason for them to, with one exception, march to their death proclaiming a unified truth for hundreds of years.
>And if ou see Adam and Eve, Noah's ark, Jonah in the big fish, a talking snake and all these stories as not literally something that happened (because it's impossible) then why stop there? A man dying for three days and resurrecting is even more impossible.
So to me I had to at some point stop and say to myself what do I REALLY believe? I want to know the TRUTH no matter what it is. Are muslims right? Budhists? Hindus? Or maybe there is no God at all.
The evidence for the Shroud of Turin is remarkable. Italy's ENEA ( National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development, not in any way a Catholic institution) has just a couple of months ago calculated the amount of energy it would take to reproduce the image on the Shroud: 34 trillion watts, triple the entire world's current energy output. {link](http://www.lastampa.it/2011/12/12/vaticaninsider/eng/inquiries-and-interviews/the-shroud-is-not-a-fake-jdiKKEyJ0uDsE4XpV13TcK/pagina.html) Note that while Vatican Insider is obviously a Catholic source, the ENEA, who conducted the study, are a scientific organization devoted to studying developments in energy efficiency and high-tech production processes.
However, the Shroud isn't the point. (However, a piece of linen that corresponds with all known data about the Resurrection and would take 34 trillion watts of energy over an incredibly short span of time certainly corroborates the Resurrection.) The point is the atheist's baseline assumption of all things can be explained with naturalistic, scientific processes.
And to this, I ask, why? What makes you think that everything in this universe can be explained with the scientific method? I, along with innumerable Christian scientists (As opposed to Christian Scientists) have no doubt that scientific rigour has brought great things to the world. But is it the only means of knowledge, and if so, on what do you base that assumption? Scientific reliance upon natural processes to explain everything does not answer the question of whether all things that happen are controlled by natural processes.
Thank you so much for engaging in an intelligent, cordial, and respectful manner. You're a much kinder atheist than I ever was! I respectfully invite you to look again. As I mentioned earlier The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus is a excellent little book that goes through all possible explanations (apostles hallucinating, apostles are liars, etc) and looks at the evidence. It's not a preachy book, but tries to use the same means we look at for evidence of other historical events and applies it to all the available sources regarding the historical Jesus (many of which were written by people who were not Christian, and had good reason to disprove Jesus' divinity).
Again, thanks for the discussion. I'll flag you as a friend just in case we ever come across one another again on this little Reddit web. It's been a pleasure.
My apologies, I assumed you may have been familiar with Rene Decartes.
I'll explain it this way: How do you know something? How do you know something as simple as your keyboard is in front of you?
You can see it and you can feel it, right?
But that doesn't actually prove the keyboard really exists. That just proves your eyes see a keyboard and your hands feel a keyboard.
And really, you can't even 100% sure of that. You know from experience that your senses aren't 100% trustworthy. They can be confused by psychological tricks or medical conditions can cause senses to report things that aren't really there. As mentioned before, optical illusions, phantom pain, schizophrenia, magic tricks, desert mirages, LSD, mushrooms, etc are all known cases where your eye sight, hearing, or sense of touch report things that aren't there.
So really, all you can say for 100% certainity is that you think your senses are reporting there's a keyboard in front of you.
While four hundred years too early, Decartes would have used The Matrix as a great example. Relying solely on your senses, there is no difference between your reality now and if you were hooked up to The Matrix. Everything you saw, heard, or touched would prove that the Matrix was reality- yet it wasn't.
Likewise, while it is incredibly unlikely and not at all practical, there is still a tiny tiny chance that you just may be inside a giant virtual reality world.
> When asked for evidence,
When asked for evidence I listed several resources for you. I'll explicitly bullet them for you this time :-)
> That's because there is no actual evidence for God, which brings me back to it not being a knowable thing.
In the sense you're using "knowing" and "evidence", I would say there is plenty.
Yeah, the counterpoints series is a GREAT introduction on each of the five major apologetic approaches.
Five Points
Return to Reason by Kelly James Clark is a fantastic book on the virtues and methodology of Reformed Epistomological apologetics
Return to Reason
If you've noticed my username, you'll see I'm a proponent of Presuppositional apologetics. For a great introduction to it, I recommend Matrix of the Atheist by James D. Lashley
Matrix of the Atheist
and for a more in depth review and understanding of both the negative (deconstruction of a non trinitarian worldview) and positive (construction of the trinitarian worldview) argumentation I reccomend Greg Bahnsen's book Always Ready
Always Ready
If you or anyone else who happens upon this and doesn't have the means to purchase either one of the presuppositional books, PM me with your address and I'll gladly have one or both shipped to you (though they may be used).
Hope you enjoy!
It's not a good apologetics book. It's a good encouraging read if you are a believer, and are talking to other believers who have a worldview rooted in the 1950s; they will think it's great!
But it's a bad apologetics book because it requires that both you and the person you are attempting to convince of the faith have a certain worldview even before the discussion happens--modernism.
McDowell's form of apologetics is called "evidentialism" because it seeks to overwhelm objections with answers, and seems to think that if you give enough right answers, you win.
(Many of his answers are satisfying to Christians and particularly older Christians. So don't get me wrong, this book can be encouraging to some and useful.)
But with postmodernism and more radical doubts about sense perception, this all plays into another apologetics method that's actually biblical and effective; presuppositionalism.
A great starter for you would be Five Views on Apologetics:
https://www.amazon.com/Five-Views-Apologetics-Steven-Cowan/dp/0310224764
Then read Richard Pratt's Every Thought Captive--easy reading, and gives you the basics of Presuppositionalism.
https://www.amazon.com/Every-Thought-Captive-Defense-Christian/dp/0875523528/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1499447338&sr=1-1&keywords=pratt+every+thought+captive
Then read Dr. John Frame's deeper look at the topic:
https://www.amazon.com/Apologetics-Justification-Christian-John-Frame/dp/1596389389/ref=pd_bxgy_14_2?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1596389389&pd_rd_r=ME8D58N4T49Q53W9FBQM&pd_rd_w=RvQkE&pd_rd_wg=bXNAh&psc=1&refRID=ME8D58N4T49Q53W9FBQM
When you see the different views, you may want something other than presup--totally understand. But you hopefully won't pick Evidentialism. It's only useful today in certain parts of the world, like Eastern Europe, ex-Soviet areas, they seem to really gravitate to Evidentialism.
Precalculus Mathematics in a Nutshell is one of the best math books I've read, and I've given copies to several people who found it very helpful.
In addition to Khanacademy, this book is pretty good:
http://www.amazon.com/Precalculus-Mathematics-Nutshell-Geometry-Trigonometry/dp/1592441300/
You might want to look at the books by I. M. Gelfand as well (The Method of Coordinates, Algebra, and Trigonometry). If you do well with the Simmons, go through those books, which are more difficult but focus more on rigor.
If you give yourself a year to get up to speed on all that, nothing should stop you from going on to calculus.
From what I've heard in the past year-anna-half, I suspect the majority of atheists here, if pushed on the matter, would call themselves secular humanists. I should do another poll, though, to get that down a little more solidly.
I do know that the vast majority are naturalists; they laugh at ideas of the supernatural.
Beyond that, you run into a whole lot of naturalist world views that have huge amounts of overlap with just a few details different. There's a chapter-long summary on these various directions in R. Shook's The God Debates, which I enjoyed; but I found the whole thing a bit confusing overall.
After reading my "favorite" atheist book, Sense and Goodness Without God - A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism, I decided that I'd like to declare myself a Metaphysical Naturalist. But while I'm a fan of science and physicalism, I also think humans are important, and "Secular Humanism" just sounds a lot more... human. So if asked, that's what I answer these days.
For anyone interested, short articles on all these flavors can be found in Wikipedia, of course.
This book seems to have pretty good reviews
and this may also prove useful as well.
An invaluable book when I took calculus the second time: Precalculus Mathematics in a Nutshell
I took calc a second time, because I had taken it previously over ten years before. My instructor at the time was quite the hardass and didn't allow calculators on his tests or homework. I remember doing integration by parts where problems would take two whole sheets of handwritten work.
Consequently, I have a bit of a "been there, done that" attitude towards calculus...
EDIT - My instructor was a big fan of Kline
>1) How do we explain that we all seem to know what is right and wrong? Why do we believe that being a human entitles someone to rights?
Evolved Morality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-biology/#EvoBioDebMor
 
>2) Why do we all look for and want meaning if this is a meaningless world?
Again, evolution.
We are hardwired to find meaning where there may be one because at some point it was advantageous to our survival.
 
>3) How can we know what is true? If our brains have evolved to ensure our survival and not necessarily tell us what is true... how can we be sure of anything?
The thing is that "being right" is part of the survival process. Or at least it became a part of the survival process at some stage. And since we know that we as humans are prone to making errors we have taken steps to doublecheck our beliefs to make sure that they are true (or at least that they map to reality).
 
>4) How do you as an atheist defend the fine-tuning argument? The chances of a world existing with life, even existing at all, is incredibly low. Did we really just get extremely lucky?
I personally dont defend the fine-tuning argument, I reject it for multiple reasons.
First of all, its proponents assume that the constants we see today could be different, but there is no real proof of that.
Second, even if they were indeed different that does not mean that life would be impossible. Life in the form as we know it may be impossible, but other forms could still arise.
http://web.uni-plovdiv.bg/marta/life_in_the_multiverse.pdf ignore the multiverse part, focus on the fact that even completely removing the weak nuclear force would still allow for the universe to form
 
>5) What do you think is the best argument against Christianity? Can you recommend any good literature that argues for atheism? I am not sure if Dawkins and Sam Harris books are any good or not. Looking for more honest/less biased writers.
Tough question.
For general overview of theistic arguments and why they all fail in one form or another I would recommend John Shook - The God Debates
For a bit more specific arguments against Christianity I would probably go for Loftus (although he can be a dick sometimes imo) Why I became an Atheist and The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails. Loftus is a former preacher and apologiest so he has really good insight into Christianity. Think Matt Dillahunty, but this one writes books. And has a huge ego :P
This book gives a quick review of the important precalculus topics. Reading that carefully, and supplementing it with Khan Academy is what I'd do in your situation.
Why I Became and Atheist by John Loftus Written by a former evangelical preacher. I see someone already suggested it, but I'm putting it forth again :)
Add these to your reading list:
Specifically on morality:
There also exist multimedia available online related to the above that you can hunt down for yourself.
(As a Catholic naturally I disagree with whatever goes against Catholic teaching in the above works; nevertheless there is much that is good in all of these. Furthermore even though some items are specifically Catholic, much in them would be useful to you.)
Well, I didn't tell you the first half of my story, but I was the real deal. I was full-on god squad. Every moment of my spare time was doing godly stuff or beating myself up because I wasn't doing enough godly stuff. I went to church Sunday (all day), Wednesday evening, Friday night, and had a few meetings every week. I went to the conferences out of country. I even taught myself some biblical Greek. I still know what κοινωνία means, and how ἀγάπη is different from φίλος, or how true repentance must be μετάνοια not merely contrition or wallowing in self-pity. I studied great preachers like Reidhead, Tozer, Wesley, Spurgeon and others.
I didn't think I was called to full time ministry; I was called to be successful in business and make money to further the kingdom of God. I tithed – for real. I have tax receipts to prove it. Serving God was going to be my life's work. I was a lay preacher. I made detailed notes and delivered inspiring sermons. I listened carefully and took notes when others spoke, to make sure I rightly divided the word of truth.
I swore "though my mother and father forsake you, God, I will never forsake you". I wrote promises like that in the back pages of my bibles (of course I had many). Here's one I wrote on Saturday November 26, 2005 at 10pm while on a retreat:
>More than anything else
>I want to be found in the presence of God.
>Is there anything else that really matters?
>Or anything else I truly need to ask for?
>Psalm 27:4.
Obviously it was unthinkable that I could ever deny the existence of God; I would have rather died than deny him. I know exactly what you mean when you say you could never deny "His" existence, I know what that feels like. After all I experienced I knew God. If I told you my "testimony" up until before my deconversion you'd be all "yes and amen, there's a man on fire for God", just like other Christians did. My favorite chapter was Isaiah 6, the vision of the exalted God, and I longed to see Him as Isaiah did.
I was devoted to God – possibly even more than you are, but I don't presume to know that. I knew God. Until I didn't.
My experiences were just as real as yours, and I have evidence for my experiences. You don't get to deny them. You don't get to gaslight me to make uncomfortable information go away. Evidence continues to exist even if ignored.
Coming to terms with reality means accepting that someone who was just as honestly and sincerely seeking God as yourself can realize God doesn't exist. That is my story. And it's not just my story you should face. Have a look at the devout pastors who no longer believe after once seeking God just as sincerely you do now.
I'm disappointed that was all you had for me as a response. After all, surely you prayed about how to lead the wayward /u/Zomunieo back to Christ? Does this mean that God Himself had no better answer than to deny the reality of my past experiences of God? You'd think if he were real, he would try, I don't know, admonishing me that those experiences were real and I'm now mistaken, rather than denigrating all of my past connections to him as less real than yours.
John Loftus used to be a Christian apologist.
I enjoyed this book very much:
Letters from a Skeptic: A Son Wrestles With His Father's Questions About Christianity by Dr. Greg Boyd and his father Edward Boyd.
Ha. I'm really curious what it says. A quick google search reveals...
http://www.livingwaters.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product_id=29&category_id=7&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=199
The site is pro-religion, so the reviews are all positive. The site kind of creeps me out, in fact.
There's an Amazon link too, lets see what it says...
http://www.amazon.com/Scientific-Facts-Bible-Reasons-Supernatural/dp/0882708791
Here we go. That's some good reviews.
The surprising thing is that the bible is read so much during mass, but still so little of it is covered (it's been estimated at 26% of the mass is spent reading from the bible, as compared to 6% in 'evangelical' services).
Some of these have been mentioned in this thread, but I wanted to make a thorough list, so here goes:
If you would like books on various topics (The Eucharist, Mary, the Sacraments, etc.), let me know and I'd be happy to provide. Also, feel free to PM at any time. :) I'll say an extra prayer for your journey right now!
DK
I was raised Evangelical... converted to Catholic in adulthood. There are a number of books that I could recommend. Here are some of my favorites - in order of importance/preference.
Ignatius Catholic Study Bible (only the NT though, they are currently working on OT)
Catechism of the Catholic Church
Catholicism and Fundamentalism (written in the 80's, but still very relevant and the best Catholic apologetics book to defend the faith that I've ever read)
Works of G.K. Chesterton Vol 3 (This volume explains why he converted from Anglican to Catholic)
Rome Sweet Home
The Fathers Know Best
Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic
Surprised By Truth
I'm a scientist, and I'm also religious, and there's a lot of interesting work on how religion and science are not mutually exclusive, and how scientific data can support the story of creation.
I believe that religion has no place in science, but for people who are scientists, who also happen to be religious, these ideas can be really helpful in balancing two worlds that on the surface may appear incompatible.
I recommend this book for anyone who is interested.
And I just want to clarify: These ideas are really just for people who might be interested in religion as well as science and don't want to dismiss either one. If that's not you, that's fine.
The former head of the Human Genome Project and current head of the National Institute of Health, Francis Collins speaks of this in his book, "The Language of God"
Alright here are some of the best resources I know as a Catholic. Hope they help!
Edward Feser's blog as well as his The Last Superstition and 5 Proofs of the Existence of God
Stephen Barr's Modern Physics and Ancient Faith
Francis Collin's The Language of God
Anthony Flew's There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind
Thomas Wood's How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization
Brant Pitre's The Case For Jesus
Tim O Neill on the Church and science, the Inquisition and the Galileo affair
Jenny Hawkins on Jesus and God, early Christianity and form criticism
Al Moritz on the Fine Tuning Argument
>There is a reason someone should believe in the supernatural and mystical aspects of Christianity. This is a large issue for me. Solely based on supernatural and mystical ideas, from an outsider perspective, Christianity is no different than animism or Buddhism. I can't have faith alone.
Well when you look at the world's religions, Christianity has a clear and impressive advantage in the miracles/mystical department. Historically, in Christianity, there have been numerous cases of Eucharistic miracles, Marian apparitions, miraculous healings and the spiritual gifts and religious experiences of countless Christian saints -- men and women of great virtue whose admirable character only add to the credibility of their testimony. Examples of these include Paul, Benedict of Nursia, Francis of Assisi, Dominic, Hildegard of Bingen, Anthony of Padua, Thomas Aquinas, Catherine of Siena, Vincent Ferrer, Joan of Arc, Ignatius of Loyola, Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, Catherine Emmerich, John Vianney, Anna Maria Taigi, Genma Galangi, Faustina Kowalska and Padre Pio. We also have a pair of impressive relics, the shroud of Turin and the sudarium of Orvieto. I'll also throw in Catholic exorcisms.
And these Eucharistic miracles, Marian apparitions and religious/mystical experiences continue to happen today.
What do Buddhism and animism have in comparison?
>Anything that discusses and argues against some common tropes from atheists such as Mother Teresa being a vile, sadistic person.
Honestly, I'm quite stunned at the portrait atheists have painted of her. At worst, she wasn't perfect and made mistakes. She cannot be a vile monster like Hitchens claims she was, that's ridiculous. Here are some articles that defend Mother Teresa -- here, here, here and here.
Check out any of Mother Teresa's personal writings (e.g. No Greater Love, A Simple Path, Come Be Thy Light) to see what she believed in, what she valued and how she saw the world. Check out books written by people who actually knew her such as that of Malcolm Muggeridge, an agnostic BBC reporter who ended up converting to Catholicism because of Teresa and ended up becoming a lifelong friend of hers. Or that of her priest, friend and confessor, Leo Maasburg, who was able to recall 50 inspiring stories of Mother Teresa. Or that of Conroy, a person who actually worked with her. Or any biography of hers. Find out what she was like according to the people around her. Then afterwards, determine for yourself if she resembles Hitchen's "monster" or the Catholic Church's "saint".
I can recommend some very good books that show scientific proof and some with historical proof.
The Language of God is written by Dr Francis Collins. Dr Collins is the head of the human genome project aka the project that mapped the whole human genome. His book reconciles faith and science and shows why the do not have to be exclusive. He is a world renowned and recognized scientist. https://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744
The Case for Christ is written by Lee Strobel. Strobel is an award winning journalist. He was an atheist and set out to prove that Christ was not the son of God nor did he really exist. The book shows all the historic evidence that he found. https://www.amazon.com/Case-Christ-Journalists-Personal-Investigation/dp/0310209307
If you are searching for proof than I recommend reading both of these books.
I also challenge you to critically read the Bible and think of what it is saying and meaning. When the gospel was being spread and Christianity was taking root many people were still alive who witnessed the things recorded.l, but seriously don't take my word for it investigate it yourself.
Yep. You may enjoy checking out the books The Geneisis Enigma and The Language of God to help your personal journey.
/u/Wil-Himbi suggested Biologos. The founder of Biologos is Dr. Francis Collins of the Human Genome Project (and now director of the NIH). Before Biologos, Collins wrote a book that I found immensely helpful in my own struggle with this question: The Language of God. I really do understand your struggle. As we discover more and more about creation, Stephen Jay Gould's non-overlapping magesteria paradigm becomes less useful. Simplistically, Gould's idea is like the separation of church and state: science and faith should be kept separate because they ask and answer different questions. I believe that this is true for many things, but as we learn more about how brains work, or about the long history of the universe, science and religion become inextricable. Check out the work of Biologos and Collins' book. They show how it is possible to be a devout Christian and a serious scientist at the same time.
>For those of you who have looked in to biblical historicity, on any level,
I guess this technically qualifies me?
>how do you reconcile potential errors and inconsistencies
Such as?
>as well as the concepts that stories of YHWH and Jesus could have been co-opted from other faiths
By asking for primary source evidence for these claims.
>Are there any books or websites you could recommend?
Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes by Kenneth Bailey
Evidence for Christianity by John McDowell
The King Jams Only Controversy by James White (this is actually a book about textual criticism and manuscript transmission).
Jesus and the Eye-Witnesses by Richard Baukham.
The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach by Mike Licona.
This book series by NT Wright.
I understand where you are coming from, and the point of this post was not to convince you that God exists, but to explain how a Christian that believes in the bible can honestly believe that all other religions are false and why that would make sense to them.
For the first point, God did imbue his followers with something that they can easily prove insurmountable to those forces, and that is the Holy Spirit. All other spirits bow to the name of Jesus and the followers of Jesus have power over them because of this. I have seen this first hand, but I cannot ask a stranger who has not witnessed this to believe that.
It is not consistent in other religions because they are lead astray by many different demons that all have their own will. They are doing a good job of keeping most of the world in the dark, but there are hundreds of millions of Christians in the world and God knows that not everyone will believe in Him.
I quoted the bible simply to show that Christianity can explain all other religions. If you do not believe in any religion then that doesn't really matter to you, lol.
Now there are many reasons why I think you should believe in Jesus but what you accept or not is up to you. Have you ever studied anatomy or genetics? I think it takes more faith to believe that random molecules just came together for no reason to form life on this earth, and from what we know scientifically just here. If you study physics and quantum physics you will realize how little how greatest minds really even understand the basic laws of our universe. Science has no answer that can explain why we exist, why the universe exist, or many other things, but Christianity does. If you study genetics and anatomy you can see the brilliant design and engineering the God of the universe has. If you believe in Christianity you know why the universe and all its laws were created, and know that you exist for a purpose. If there is no God you are a pointless collection of molecules floating through space on a rock making no impact on the universe. Your life is brief and pointless and exist for no purpose. Understanding Christianity helps you understand so many things and gives you hope and a purpose, because you actually have one! We are made up of neutrons, electrons, and protons, and those are made up of quarks. The God of the universe created all energy and matter in the universe, all of it. With enough power you can rearrange those atoms into whatever configuration you want. It is scientifically possible that with enough controlled energy you could form a person from the molecules of dust by rearranging the atoms. We are just made of atoms, which are energy. With a God of unimaginable energy anything is possible, including not being restricted by the force of time. The Christian God is not restricted by time and can exist at all points at the same time. This is a very hard concept for humans to comprehend which is why concepts like the trinity, and God knowing your actions before you make them, and how He reacts because of that, it so hard to understand. Understanding the concept and mechanics of time helps you understand how God operates. There is so much proof and testimony out there about why the Christian God is real if you wanted to find proof you could. I could go on and on about so many of these topics but there is not time for all of this!
If you want some basic proof that you can trust in Christianity read The evidence for Christianity https://www.amazon.com/Evidence-Christianity-Josh-McDowell/dp/1418506281.
There are many people who can all testify that God is real and have seen it, but that is what other people. There is a book that just came out called The Case for Miracles. https://www.amazon.com/Case-Miracles-Journalist-Investigates-Supernatural/dp/0310259185. There is evidence there but if you don't want to believe it you can always find a reason not to.
I shared my testimony on this post so you can see why I believe. I believe because it is rational, scientific, and I have see multiple proofs for myself. If you cannot find it I can share it again.
I love Christianity because our God is actually real and still at work today. I believe because I have encountered him multiple times in supernatural experiences, and I am not alone in this. Many people encounter God, and it is something that I really want more people to see, so they can have something real to believe in, and not just the words of another person. Look at what the apostle Paul actually had to say about that:
1 Corinthians 2 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Paul’s Reliance upon the Spirit
2 And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the [a]testimony of God. 2 For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. 3 I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, 4 and my [b]message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 so that your faith would not [c]rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.
6 Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away; 7 but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; 8 the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory; 9 but just as it is written,
“Things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard,
And which have not entered the heart of man,
All that God has prepared for those who love Him.”
10 [d]For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. 11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, 13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, [e]combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
14 But [f]a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually [g]appraised. 15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. 16 For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.
Christianity spread because God showed His power by the Holy Spirit, not by mere words or philosophy alone. I am not with you but just online so words are all I have, but I hope it makes you want to seek more. Seek a Charismatic Christian Church and you are likely to see a miracle first hand. There are many Christians that do not believe in the power of God and are more comfortable just learning about Him, so you will not find miracles in many churches, especially not the Catholic or Orthodox church.
I will also share with you what I gain by being a Christian. I know I am loved by the God of the universe with a love greater than any person on this Earth could have for me. I know my God is with me always and will never forsake me. I know I have a purpose and I have no reason to fear. I do not fear death or the opinion of other people. I know I can trust in my God and He will never let me down. I can see how science fits together explain the hand of my God and his universe. I can love others without wanting gain because God loved me first. I do not judge others so that I am not judged myself. I know my human life on this Earth is just a very small sliver of my existence. If I lived to be 120 years old my whole life would not even be a the first page in the story of my life when I will be raised by God and given an immortal body and live in a paradise. This life is only a brief test, and all injustice will be righted. I have freedom in Christ and know that His sacrifice earned my place with God, and not anything that I did or will do. I know I do not have to continually work to appease God or earn my way to anything. I live my life for Christ because of my love for Him and want to follow His teachings so I can be more like him, not to earn anything or avoid any punishment. God has told me many things that will happen in my life, and some of it has already come true. Prophecy in peoples lives is real and one of the gifts of the spirit. I can have peace and happiness regardless of where I live, how much money I have, or how other people treat me. I seek to impress no one and live free. Everything I have is not for me only, but for anyone who truly seeks God and gives their life to him. I want others to share in my joy which is why I share my beliefs and experiences.
I hope this makes some sort of sense, lol!
I made some edits for spelling and grammer. It is hard to proof read the small little reply window.
You are so smart to do so my friend! You're probably a philosopher at heart, too inquisitive to "just believe." That's great, I wish more Christians were like that.
The fact is there's plenty plenty of evidence for the truth (both historical and philosophical) of Christianity though it just takes time to read through it all. It's something you kind of have to get a bug up your butt about, or in my case you get strong-armed into it mentally, in which case you become obsessed with it which is what happened to me.
For some lay-level reading I'd check out (in no particular order)
Cold Case Christianity
Reasonable Faith or really anything by William Lane Craig
Evidence for Christianity
There are a TON more...
Also, read the old Church fathers, really fun stuff.
Please feel free to PM me anytime, I will gladly talk to you about whatever you want.
Yeah there is certainly no good defense for what they believe.
What you need are good, solid arguments for God's existence and Jesus' resurrection. For those you should read Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig.
Not sure if its the best but Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig is a good resource.
Personally, I really like the book Reasonable Faith which discusses this topic and others, but for more information specifically about the Euthyphro dilemma, see the author's discussion here.
Edit: Craig's book God Over All deals specifically in great depth with divine aseity and basis for the grounding of objective moral values and duties in God, rather than platonic abstracts.
http://www.amazon.com/Letters-Skeptic-Wrestles-Questions-Christianity/dp/1434799808 An amazing book and a resource I often come back to... could not recommend enough :)
Letters from a Skeptic by Greg Boyd offers a moving and intelligent dialogue about the Christian faith.
Take a look inside. It's just as idiotic as you thought it would be. Including the claim that this line from the bible "Can you send lightning, that they may go and say to you, Here we are?" is talking about radio.
I too have been asking these questions. You will find most if not all of them answered at Catholic Answers. For example, here is one of the answers regarding infant baptism. There is also an article regarding infant baptism in the early church.
Here is an article on why Catholics ask for intercession from the Saints.
They also have a great You Tube channel that will answer just about any question you have.
You may be interested in the Ignatius Study Bible New Testament. It contains an Index of Doctrines in the appendix. For any given doctrine, they provide Biblical references and commentary regarding that doctrine. That alone should make this a must read for Protestants. It uses the Revised Standard Version.
There are many great resources that can answer your questions. I started with a video series called What Catholics Really Believe. There's an unrelated book by the same name as well.
Any book by Scott Hahn may be of interest. He was an ordained Presbyterian minister before he became Catholic.
Send me a message if you want any more info.
Another good book is Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic. It explains Catholic theology from the perspective of a fundamentalist Protestant convert.
Any book by Peter Kreeft would be good, but you may especially like his Handbook of Catholic Apologetics since it specifically answers the questions you are asking. Kreeft is a Catholic convert from Calvinism.
Bp. Barron provides a load of resources on his site Word on Fire. He has a You Tube channel as well.
There are many, many more resources, but this should get you started. I have been a Protestant all my life, but I've been studying Catholicism heavily for a few years. So far, all of my questions have been answered from resources available online.
If you, like me, come from the American Evangelical or Fundamentalist tradition, I recommend the book Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic by David Currie. He is very fair in his descriptions of Evangelical and Catholic teaching and is a great description of his journey which you may find yours mirroring.
I personally own this by David Currie. It's written in a more narrative style as it's a memoir as well, but contains the specific teachings as well.
Aye. There are a lot of Reformed who see it the same way, actually. At least in my church back home, a larger PCA church, many of the older generations were pretty entrenched in a view of the Catholic church that was implied completely unity in doctrine across the board so as to say that every Catholic was not a Christian for various reasons.
Have you ever heard of the book Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic? You might recommend it to some friends. It describes the journey of someone who grew up in a fundamentalist evangelical tradition and through an honest exploration of the Catholic church and his own beliefs becomes Catholic. He wasn't Reformed, so in reading it there were many parts where he and I parted ways in our understanding of basics of the faith, however he comes from the generic non-Reformed evangelical tradition which is certainly larger than the Reformed tradition.
Have you read David Currie's book?
And I think you might like this one
The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate https://www.amazon.com/dp/0830837043/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_UEQwDbCWQBBYH
The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief https://www.amazon.com/dp/1416542744/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_LFQwDbB8ZK68E
You might be interested in the writings of Francis Collins and his colleagues. His book The Language of God is very very good and explains this very well. Francis led the Human Genome Project and is extraordinarily smart.
In addition, he has a website where a lot of your questions can be answered: http://www.biologos.org/
Sorry I've been out of state the past week and didn't get a chance to see this.
> Morals are formed by the need for us to function as a society, how is that evidence of a god? Just because a religion has a moral code is not evidence that a god is required to have them. It's pretty simple, if there were just one living thing, would anything it did be moral or immoral?
You're stating one of the two most widely understood theories on the origin of morality - I'm sure everyone on this sub is familiar with that idea. Obviously what I was saying is that what I observe about morality makes me believe in the other widely spread theories about moral origin - absolute morality.
> What research papers say DNA has an intelligent language behind it?
It's a pretty significant debate right now. Here is an article discussing a book from Harvard about DNA evidence for intelligent design, [Here] (http://www.amazon.com/The-Language-God-Scientist-Presents/dp/1416542744) is a book by Francis Collins. These are just the first two things a google search turned up.
>Order in the universe, the ability for life to create life and ways to survive, does not automatically mean there is an intelligence behind it. It can mean that things are subject to the same constants.
I agree. I don't think I was saying otherwise before, I was just saying that it's more difficult to understand how design could come out of no design than from design. That doesn't mean it didn't happen.
> It's still a story, just like every other religion. John took the most creative liberties of them all.
That doesn't change the fact that having more sources gives something more credibility than something with less sources - which was my point.
Francis Collins (human genome project, current director of NIH) is also an evangelical Christian. He wrote this book about science and faith: https://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744
BioLogos - emphasizes the compatibility of Christian faith with what science has discovered about the origins of the universe and life
Check out the BioLogos Foundation's website, which has many great works by world renowned scientists. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project and current director of the NIH, founded it following the publication of his book, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief
Here is a book recommendation.
I'm sort of trying to get a homework assignment done so I can't really give a detailed answer. But really, some of your questions are better answered by books as opposed to reddit answers. I'll recommend a few that argue for the Catholic or conservative perspective. I'm not name dropping these books so you can read all of them, but if you want in depth answers to your questions this is what you should read.
Gay marriage: https://www.amazon.com/What-Marriage-Man-Woman-Defense/dp/1594036225/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1549313854&sr=1-3&keywords=what+is+marriage
Abortion: https://www.amazon.com/Persuasive-Pro-Life-Cultures-Toughest/dp/1941663044/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1549313881&sr=1-1&keywords=Persuasive+pro+life
General Theism: https://www.amazon.com/Answering-Atheism-Make-Logic-Charity/dp/1938983432/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1549313922&sr=1-6&keywords=Trent+horn
There's also Edward Feser's 5 proof for the existence of God which I haven't read but I'm sure is good. Feser's a former atheist and currently a philosophy professor so he's pretty solid.
General History of Catholicism (and arguably, deals with faith vs science issues): https://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Church-Built-Western-Civilization/dp/1596983280/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1549313995&sr=1-1&keywords=How+the+Catholic+Church+built+western+civilization
A book you would really get a kick out of as a biochemistry student: https://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1549314047&sr=1-1&keywords=the+language+of+God
Francis Collins is the former head of the NIH and is the scientist who lead the project to decode the human genome. He's also a convert to Christianity from atheism.
Just adding that there are still Christian scientists that believe this today. Not every Christian scientist is a creationist. Francis Collins the head of the NIH and former head of the Human Genome Project and has written extensively on faith and science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins#Opinions
http://www.amazon.com/The-Language-God-Scientist-Presents/dp/1416542744
Actually I am the one who feels sorry for you. In actuality - cognitive dissonance is required by atheism. God does not "strike you lame" because there is no need to. And you would never believe if any of those things happen. You would eventually strike it up to coincidence. That is a fact. You know that internally is correct. God gave you a mind. He does not need to be your magician. You would never believe that. He would rather you seek Him with your mind/understanding. There is enough evidence in creation to show that there is a Creator. Again - cognitive dissonance is on your part, not mine.
I did not grow up believing in Jesus, but was raised Jewish. However the evidence was so overwhelming that I would need cognitive dissonance to turn away from it. Again - I will say it again because you have never refuted it once. That complex things in life require thought. They require design. Male/female reproduction could never have arisen except by design.
It is a cop out and a running from these facts that you now turn to Ad hominem statements. Par for the course from most atheists I have met. They are not critical thinkers in this specific area.
There is not a shred of doubt that you will know there is a God one day. He waits very patiently (He is in no rush.) He lives forever. You (and I) have a limited number of heartbeats left.
Next time you go to a restaurant - remember - there was no chef/cook behind those doors. You are deceiving yourself to believe there was a cook/chef.
Be well my friend. No need to keep going on this. There are plenty of authors who address this subject so eloquently. Dr. Frances Collins (Head of the Human Genome Project) wrote eloquently on this subject. Amazon carries it as they do dozens of other books by scientists who have refused to resort to ad hominem, but rather use their minds to come to a logical conclusion. There is a Creator. Here is the Amazon title - The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. https://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744
Be well my friend. Avoid death. You dont want to die in this state. Zero doubt.
In addition to Mere Christianity here are a few more worth checking out. Despite the need for faith there is far more evidence for Christianity then I ever knew until recently. These are just a few of the resource that have helped me.
GodQuest
I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist
Stealing from God
The Language of God
The Fingerprint of God
I have put them in the order I would recommend reading but they are all great resources.
Another good resource for spiritual journeys are church small groups. A number of larger churches often have weekly groups or 6-8 week meetings geared for new believers and seekers. All the resources in the world are great by my journey was more shaped by talking through these things then anything else.
Glad to hear where your journey has brought you. I will be praying that God helps you find the resource and people you need to fill in the gaps.
Francis Collins, the head of the human genome project, is a committed Christian and also believes in evolution. He wrote a book that she may want to check out called The Language of God. I personally don't agree with his belief that DNA is evidence of a creator; but the book is valuable in these cases where someone can be shown that it's possible to be a Christian and accept evolution as well.
If you want to go a little farther, there are a huge number of good resources on Youtube to debunk creationism. I am currently working on a series: Why I am no longer a creationist; and I've also gathered hours of videos into playlists from other Youtube atheists/evolutionists (thunderfoot, aronra, potholer54, bestofscience, etc...) that you could check out as well.
Here are 4 suggestions.
Currently on my night stand:
1- Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World http://www.amazon.com/Things-Hidden-Since-Foundation-World/dp/0804722153
2-Science and Religion. 5 Questions http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/8792130518
Other recommendations that I think fit the criteria:
1- Marketing of Evil: http://www.amazon.com/Marketing-Evil-Pseudo-Experts-Corruption-Disguised/dp/1942475217
2- Language of God: http://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744
If you're interested, I would recommend reading The Language of God by Francis Collins.
Dr. Collins is the current director of the National Institutes of Health; his instrumental work on the Human Genome Project was arguably one of the most important biomedical advances in the last few decades. He is also a devout Catholic, and his book helped me realize that what we know about God and what we know about science are perfectly compatible with each other.
I'm both a Christian and a PhD-carrying scientist. There are answers to the supposed discrepancies between the Bible and science with each individual "discrepancy" requiring its own response (i.e. there's not a blanket answer (such as "it's all figurative") for all them them). Reasonably good answers to many of the more common "the Bible and science are at odds" types of questions can be found here. This website doesn't have definitive answers by any means, but it is a nice place to start.
Also, if you're looking for a more "qualified" source than some internet website, the book The Language of God by Francis Collins (current director of the NIH - National Institute of Health) is a nice perspective from a top-level scientist who is also a Christian.
A balanced view only can be developed by hearing both sides.
Timothy Keller - The Reason for God - Believing in an Age of Skepticism (chapter summaries)
C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity
J. Warner Wallace - Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels
Alvin Plantinga - Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism
Francis S. Collins - The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief
Craig A. Evans - Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels
You can find longer list over at christianapologetics or at Kindle Deals in Christianity, Christian Worldview, and Apologetics
bethinking.org exists to help you make sense of the big questions about life.
The Biologos Foundation Ressource Finder
The Veritas Forum Talks
I've always believed science proves God. People talk about nature like it's so chaotic and all by chance, when really it's too magnificent to have been an accident. The patterns in nature, the way everything has a purpose to keep the world turning, each animal and insect has its own place in the ecosystem. Circle of Life sort of thing, if that makes sense. Check out "The Language of God" by Francis Collins http://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1348164791&sr=1-1&keywords=the+language+of+god that pretty much shows what I mean. I've heard some people say "well why doesn't the Bible explain science then?" (I've heard this from both people who believe in science and not God and vice versa) And the answer is: try explaining Quantum Physics to early people. Damn near impossible. Anyways, someone else has recommended this book I just linked you as well, so you know it's a good one if multiple people suggest you read it. :)
I'm a Christian and a scientist. I struggle with questions like yours often and find myself returning to belief after each
'wrestling match'. As /u/sunnyEl-ahrairah said, this kind of wrestling is a good thing. If God exists, he wants us to use our minds.
Food for thought, as I certainly don't have all the answers:
>How do I know I have the right God? Maybe I only believe in the American Jesus... While another part of the world believes in Vishnu. What if they're right? It seems like it's just fixed on wherever you are....
It comes down to the person of Jesus. Who was he? The actual son of God, a malicious liar, or a crazy person? This is CS Lewis' famous 'Lord, Liar, Lunatic' argument, you may have heard it. The answer is a matter of belief and faith -- is the Bible reliable testimony? Does it quote him accurately? The things he claimed couldn't have been made by a mere 'good man'. So who was he? Figuring that out has to be part of your search for God.
>How does the physical world reconcile with scripture (genesis, when read literal, appears to deny evolution)?
A literal interpretation? It can't. Reading the Bible out of context, translated into English, and without considering the culture just does not square with the discoveries of science. But modern cosmology and evolution can both be squared nicely with the Bible, especially when recognizing that those chapters in Genesis match well with someone's vision of we see today. Check out Francis Collins' (former head of Human Genome Project) book The Language of God for one perspective. You might also be interested in Hugh Ross, a pastor and astrophysicist, and his website Reasons to Believe.
>If there is a god, and he created all of this, isn't he just a powerful alien? How is religion really that different from science fiction?
Aliens would be within the Universe, God outside of it. Aliens would be in the same boat that we are, part of creation. We define God as the Creator, separate from the rest of Universe (somehow!).
>How can someone who created the universe care about me individually? I've started to feel like that is just brought in to encourage the peasants to listen to the church.
It's a mindblowing idea, especially in light of the size of the Universe, and it takes faith.
Some things that I see that convince me that there is design to the Universe and a Creator (apart from the Bible):
All of these highly ordered things exist in a Universe that tends toward disorder, entropy. With those in mind, it's actually easier for me to believe that God exists than doesn't. How he might interact with humans is a whole big other question, and that's where I consider the case of Jesus and my own observations of love, inherent right and wrong, and the arc of human history.
There aren't superior races of humanity because evolution isn't teleological, it doesn't have an end goal or intrinsic purpose.
Once you're aware of the evidence, the conclusion that all life is related is self-evident. For example, all other ape species have 24 pairs of chromosomes. Humans have only 23. It was discovered that human chromosome 2 has telomeres (basically protective end caps for chromosomes) in the middle of the chromosome. This suggests that two chromosomes became fused at some point in the past and that this trait was passed on to all subsequent descendants.
As further confirmation, it was found that the genetic code from each end of this apparently hybrid chromosome was a near-perfect match to the code from chromosomes 2 and 3 in chimpanzees and gorillas.
I used to be where you are - accepted that evolution had to have at least some truth to it, but was still not sure as to the extent that it occurred between wildly different groups of animals. The Language of God by Francis Collins more or less single-handedly changed my mind. The author is a born-again Christian but also one of the leading geneticists of our time. He was the head researcher on the Human Genome Project.
I hope you decide to look into the subject further, but regardless of if you do or not, be sure not to lose that skeptical attitude.
Thanks again for poitning me to Biologos! Very awesome site. I just ordered Collin's book it has good reviews. Ill let you know when im done reading it.
Theistic evolution.
Frances Collins who headed the Human Genome Project, described his beliefs this way in an interview when asked the question "In your book, you say religion and science can coexist in one person's mind. This has been a struggle for some people, especially in terms of evolution. How do you reconcile evolution and the Bible?" Note: he wrote The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.
>As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before.
>
>It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming.
>
>I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that.
>
>But I have no difficulty putting that together with what I believe as a Christian because I believe that God had a plan to create creatures with whom he could have fellowship, in whom he could inspire [the] moral law, in whom he could infuse the soul, and who he would give free will as a gift for us to make decisions about our own behavior, a gift which we oftentimes utilize to do the wrong thing.
>
>
I believe God used the mechanism of evolution to achieve that goal. And while that may seem to us who are limited by this axis of time as a very long, drawn-out process, it wasn't long and drawn-out to God. And it wasn't random to God.
Reference: 'God Is Not Threatened by Our Scientific Adventures'
Love is the single most important Universal Truth that is common to all of humanity. Everybody is born innocent and pure, with the capacity to Love. We are NOT born as sinners. We only become sinners once we develop an ego. Children are NOT sinners. The whole purpose in life is to learn to suppress the Ego and become like an innocent child again. This is the whole point of the example that Jesus gave us. The new testament presents God as Love.
The most important thing in the Bible, the main message of the Bible is this:
Matthew 22:36-40
New International Version (NIV)
36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’
38 This is the first and greatest commandment.
39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’
40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
The very fact that I'm writing this message to you and you are reading this message of Love, is all the proof you need that God exists and is real. "God" wants you to know, that all that matters is Love. Keep Love in your heart, make every decision in your life based on Love. Agnosticism is based upon fear, the polar opposite of Love. Choose Love, man, just choose Love!!! This message of Love, has been brought to you directly for you, from God. This is not a joke. In this very moment, as you are reading this, God has touched you and wants you to know that God is within your heart at this very moment, with you, right now and always is there, no matter what, all you have to do is remember that God is Love. So any time you feel Love for another person, be it your parents, relatives, friends or anybody, that is God shining through YOU. Any time you receive Love from another person, that is God. That is all that God is, it's very simple and pure. This is the basis of Christianity, if you have Love in your heart, then you are being like Jesus Christ. Don't let other people over-complicate it for you with religious dogma, traditions and other fundamentalist nonsense.
Just as you have no doubt that Love is Truth, believe that God is Truth, because they are One and the same exact thing. If you have Love in your heart, then you have God in your heart. "God" is just another word for "Love". Don't get stuck on the semantics.
What is the absolute proof of Love? Can science detect Love? If so, then it can detect God.
Alcohol is only "evil" if used to an excess. Lots of things can be evil. Ethanol has lots of valuable and useful purposes. You can use it to disinfect a wound (painful, but effective), mouthwash, gargle, soothes a sore throat, in small, infrequent quantities there are health benefits. "Evil" is merely an intention to do harm. Anything can be used for "evil". A screwdriver is just a tool, you can use it for good or you can stab someone in the neck with it, if the intention is to be evil, then it's evil, if you are defending your life, then even killing another person isn't evil. So you need to be aware of the context, and the intention behind things and actions.
Why Christianity? Because Jesus gave us a perfect example of how we should live our lives, full of Love and compassion towards others. That is not to say that all other religions are wrong. In fact, there is much spiritual Truth, knowledge, and wisdom to be learned from other religions. For an intelligent person such as yourself, you can find a lot of valuable answers from the teachings of Buddhism, for example, which is NOT in any way in conflict with being a Christian. Buddha was a very enlightened master and you will find great peace in reading about him.
The Old Testament is loaded with crap, throw most of it out if you want. That's not at all representative of what God is according to Jesus Christ.
As a Biomedical Engineering major it is CRUCIAL that you read this book:
The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief by Francis S. Collins
If you don't know who the author is, check this out:
Francis Sellers Collins (born April 14, 1950), is an American physician-geneticist, noted for his discoveries of disease genes and his leadership of the Human Genome Project (HGP). He currently serves as Director of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. Prior to being appointed Director, he founded and was president of the BioLogos Foundation.
Here is another book:
The God Theory: Universes, Zero-point Fields, And What's Behind It All
[Video] The God Theory
Now do you believe that if you ask God for answers, they will be given to you? Is this not the proof you wanted? How can you deny that you've asked and now you've received? You can't deny it. You asked God to prove that he is real to you and this is it, right here, right NOW.
I was raised as a YEC but enjoyed debating with others. I ultimately realized that my requirement for evidence of evolution was set far too high. These requirements weren't mine, someone else indoctrinated me. Their reasons for indoctrinating me were false as well: that is they told me that I had to reject the Bible if the earth was old and evolution was true.
I found this book helpful though not perfect: http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1416542744
Sorry for the delay. I had been looking for my copy of this book but can't seem to find it. Most of our answers are right there.
I have been atheist my whole life and am currently waist deep in reading Christian apologetics.
Lee Strobel has some fantastic books (Case for Faith is great, haven't read Case for Christ yet) and I'm currently reading Evidence for Christianity. He has two actual books on the topic and they're merged into this giant creature that reads more like lecture notes, but I like it so far. I'm very early on though.
Have you read much of William Lane Craig? He pretty much revived the Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of God, and he is very knowledgeable on this subject of Theology and Cosmology. His book, Reasonable Faith has something along the lines of 1/5 of the book dedicated to examining different models of the universe, including the Big Bang Model, but also including the Multiverse, Cyclical Models, and some more I'm probably forgetting. There are enough articles and videos on his website and on youtube that you could look up so you wouldn't have to go out and buy a book, but the book is more exhaustive.
If your looking for good philosophical and logical arguments for the existence of God that might get him thinking, then you might want to pick up Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig.
I think someone up higher was correct when they said that only God changes hearts, but I found this book very thought provoking. Even if it doesn't convince him it might produce some very good and thoughtful discussions.
And cheers to you for wanting to share the joy! It's the best basis for a relationship that I can imagine.
By far, the only book I've ever read that makes a good case for theism without doing any of the stupid things evangelicals do (references to evolution, the Bible, etc) is The Last Superstition. It serves as an introduction to the thought of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, and really shows how badly Dawkins' screwed up the arguments for the existence of God. From very reasonable starting principles, it argues up to God and immortal human soul with absolutely no reference to divine revelation, any specific religion (except two short pages where he explains how the resurrection could be defended). While it didn't turn me into a theist, it did give me some good food for thought and, quite frankly, I can no longer call theism irrational.
After that, try out Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig; it's considerably weaker than Feser's book, but I appreciate that Craig steers clear of any form of ID (in fact, his fine tuning argument may directly contradict it), and all five of his arguments for the existence of God are logically valid, which leaves you free to ponder over whether the premises are true or not.
Secondly, I would recommend checking out some of the individual arguments for theism, apart from any specific book. CS Lewis is weak IMO as an apologist for theism, but his argument from reason is interesting and worth thinking about. It is expanded in book form here by Vic Reppert. I also made a quickie infographic on it. I also recommend checking out the First Way of Aquinas (see my infographic), partially because it is a lot stronger than atheists seem to think, but MOSTLY to compare to Dawkins' treatment of it in The God Delusion, where you can hopefully clearly see that he hasn't bothered to actually look into it and his confirmation bias is now crystal clear to me.
Using the word apologist can be like using the word "liberal" or "conservative" depending upon who you are talking to. Calling someone a liberal doesn't really tell me about them or their politics; it just shows me that someone is vehemently anti-liberal.
Edit: To address your first question - he addresses so much and has had a long, voluminous career; so I'd suggest starting with his book Reasonable Faith if you're really interested in hearing some of what he has to say. Or listen to some of his debates instead. Or, heck, write him at his website/search there for individual responses which you may be curious about.
Hey man as a Medical Student your username checks out lol. In addition to the book you read I would recommend the book Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig.
https://www.amazon.com/Reasonable-Faith-Christian-Truth-Apologetics/dp/1433501155/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1473563265&sr=8-1&keywords=reasonable+faith
Hello!
Yes I really do believe there is evidence! There is good evidence and plenty of it, it isn't hard to find.
I've got four things that you can do right now:
But Is It True? - Michael Ots
The Reason for God - Tim Keller
Reasonable Faith - William Lane Craig
Please do message me if you have any questions or want any other help/ideas. I'd love to chat to you more. I'm convinced there is evidence, please do tell me why you do agree/disagree and what you're thinking :)
I would also recommend starting with Mark, I definitely found it the easiest to read when I was younger.
In terms of philosophy and theology, it really depends on how well read OP is and how long they've been interested in both subjects. I found McGrath's Christian Theology: An Introduction (there are cheaper editions) and Guthrie's Christian Doctrine to be good high school level theology intros.
For intermediate, maybe William Lane Craig's Reasonable Faith?
If OP has a longstanding interest in and has studied philosophy—note "theology lately, and philosophy"—there's no reason not to start with advanced stuff like The City of God or parts of the Summa.
You mentioned in this thread that you were interested in WLC. There are several works that might be helpful to you:
Reasonable Faith
and if you have a lot of time
Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (Craig and Moreland, but includes a large collection of topics from many modern philosophers)
Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Craig and Moreland)
Again, these last two are rather extensive, but you may find them to be useful if you're interested in the philosophical/scientific aspects of Christianity. Hope this helps!
There is a great book called letters to a skeptic by Greg Boyd. Greg wrote letters back and forth between his dad who was an agnostic or atheist. A lot of this ground is covered by Boyd. Boyd is a great writer and speaker and also pastor.
Boyd is also a fan of proof and would agree with you that some people may not need certain answers but it doesn’t mean the questions are not important. It’s ok to ask for proof.
I’d do a horrible job paraphrasing his entire book so I’ll say if you’re a reader at all you might enjoy it.
Letters from a Skeptic: A Son Wrestles with His Father's Questions about Christianity https://www.amazon.com/dp/1434799808/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_hfc5Bb87DPXMN
Mathew 24:24-25
24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you ahead of time.
As for texts, I recommend starting here, I loved it.
https://www.amazon.com/Seeking-Allah-Finding-Jesus-Christianity/dp/0310527236
Once you finish, feel free to message me / comment here on any questions on any of the stuff read in it or elsewhere in your journey.
If you're interested here's another good one
i realize that this is not a statement of support for ID. truthfully, i don't know if such a list exists, but since you wouldn't be convinced by such a thing anyway, here's three scientists with scientific reasons for supporting ID:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05/scientists_who_support_intelli.html.
------------------
Francis Collins who headed up the Human Genome project would certainly qualify as a fourth.
http://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/0743286391.
-------------------
And then there was this video posted to reddit a couple days ago pointing problems with the fossil record, and problems with the scientific community's acceptence of the facts when they don't match their beliefs.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6ae_1228315222
---------------------
You'll probably point out that this is hardly "quite a number of high profile scientists." but it's not a bad for my 5 minutes of searching (I'm sure I could turn up a whole lot more with more effort). The original statement I took issue with said "there's nothing scientific about intelligent design."
These four examples would seem to indicate there there is indeed some science to ID.
Francis Collins was the director of the Human Genome Project. He is a Christian, but (obviously) completely accepts the theory of evolution. His book The Language of Life explains why. His book The Language of God attempts to strike a middle ground between science and religion. It's pretty good, even though I (an atheist) disagree with many of his conclusions.
Privileged planet
https://www.amazon.com/Privileged-Planet-John-Rhys-Davies/dp/B0002E34C0/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1485725348&sr=8-2&keywords=privileged
Signature in the cell
https://www.amazon.com/Signature-Controversy-Responses-Critics-Cell/dp/0979014182/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1485725571&sr=8-3&keywords=signature+in+the+cell
Gunning for God
https://www.amazon.ca/Gunning-God-Atheists-Missing-Target/dp/0745953220
God's Undertaker
https://www.amazon.ca/Gods-Undertaker-Has-Science-Buried/dp/0745953719
https://www.amazon.com/Wonder-World-Journey-Modern-Science/dp/0972347313/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8
The Wonder of the world- one of the books that changed Antony Flew from an outspoken Atheist to a diest.
I recommend these to start, if you are genuinely interested that is.
Here are a few of the resources that have helped me:
https://biologos.org/
https://www.amazon.com/Creation-Evolution-Do-Have-Choose/dp/0857215787
https://www.amazon.com/Gunning-God-Atheists-Missing-Target/dp/0745953220/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=gunning+for+god&qid=1555348576&s=books&sr=1-1
https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Undertaker-Has-Science-Buried/dp/0745953719/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=gunning+for+god&qid=1555348605&s=books&sr=1-2
https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels-Eyewitness-Testimony/dp/0802831621
Also, I've visited a lot of different churches and have plenty of friends that are Christians. Seeing that Christians are so very different from JW's- many are well educated, intelligent, thinking people- with a faith that is extremely different from the JW belief system. They have this passion, sincerity and relationship with God that is the opposite of the legalistic JW cult.
> you must consider it without bias
If that is the requirement for having a valid viewpoint, you've just invalidated every living human being's viewpoint, including your own. No one is completely unbiased.
> if requiring a sound basis in evidence matters to you, then faith will never satisfy because it is by definition a "firm belief in something for which there is no proof".
I wholly (but respectfully) disagree. What you linked contains multiple definitions of faith, and the one you quoted is not one I've ever been encouraged to embrace by any religious teachers I've had. While I'm sure that some Christians discourage asking hard questions, my experience with Presbyterianism (which, granted, has a reputation for heavy intellectualism) has been anything but what you described.
While I have heard that logic must be paired with faith, I don't think it's ever been in a sense different from, say, a physics major might take to learning. It's well beyond most people to conduct experiments to figure out what the gravitational constant on Earth is, yet almost everyone is content to just believe what their physics textbook tells them. This faith in academics is well justified, as we can see the incredible effects physicists have had on our world over the centuries. These effects include not only improvements to the overall quality of human life, but horrific tragedies such as the dropping of the two atomic bombs.
In the same way, most people don't have the time or education to verify everything a pastor might preach to them. However, many people learn what they can (when they can) and, seeing their religious leader's lives changed by their genuine search for truth and desire to serve others, trust that what they are being taught is true.
So, this notion (that redditors seem to live in) that being Christian means automatically dismissing objective thinking isn't true. As for me, I have very little free time as a full time student with a part time job and dreams of grad school. However, in my spare time I do explore apologetics and happily welcome any objections as long as they are presented as you have acted: with respect.
I am currently making my way through Josh McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict as it was recommended to me by one of my most influential teachers. Again, I'm happy to explore objections to Christianity from anyone as long as we're both genuinely seeking truth.
Read this.
And if you believe that what God says is true, then you can justify that he is outside of space and time because what he says is true.
This is the Amazon listing, which puts it around $50 ($35 for the Kindle copy). There are used listings for about $35.
I maybe interested. Is this the one you’re referring to?
Reformed Dogmatics: Abridged in One Volume https://www.amazon.com/dp/0801036488/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_iqFXBb0Z1T9EZ
Some really good arguments for creation here.
Go buy a copy. It is a very good read.
Review: Why you should read Bavinck.
https://www.amazon.com/New-Proofs-Existence-God-Contributions/dp/0802863833
Since we're trading physics books:
https://www.amazon.com/New-Proofs-Existence-God-Contributions/dp/0802863833
Here's hoping rms becomes the patron saint of eating toe gunk.
Feser sounds like a good choice. If he's all about "le science" the book "New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy" looks good, although I've only read a very small part of it and got distracted and moved on with life.
Not sure if this is what you're looking for, but it might be close: http://www.amazon.com/New-Proofs-Existence-God-Contributions/dp/0802863833
SECTION | CONTENT
:--|:--
Title | Putting Creation to the Test. Dr. Hugh Ross and Dr. Fuz Rana at Purdue University
Description | Follow RTB_Official for updates! Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/RTBofficial Twitter: https://twitter.com/RTB_official Instagram: http://instagram.com/rtb_official Website: http://www.reasons.org
Length | 2:33:38
SECTION | CONTENT
:--|:--
Title | Has God Spoken? EVIDENCE FOR THE BIBLE pt1
Description | How could you prove that God has communicated to us? What would be a reasonable way to show that God has spoken? This video answers that question and deals with false prophecies in preparation for the next video in this series where we will begin to look at fulfilled prophecy in the Bible as proof that God has spoken. Full "Evidence for the Bible" playlist here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjnwldgqN8c&list=PLZ3iRMLYFlHuhA0RPKZFHVcjIMN_-F596 LINK to video about EVIDENCE for the Resurrection...
Length | 0:49:30
SECTION | CONTENT
:--|:--
Title | The Resurrection Meets Skepticism - Gary Habermas, PhD
Description | Pomona First Baptist Church (February 22, 2015) - Lecture by Christian scholar and thinker Gary Habermas. Buy his books dealing with the evidence and arguments for the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus: http://www.amazon.com/Case-Resurrection-Jesus-Gary-Habermas/dp/0825427886 Did the Resurrection Happen?: A Conversation with Gary Habermas and Antony Flew: http://www.amazon.com/Did-Resurrection-Happen-Conversation-Habermas/dp/0830837183 The Historical Je...
Length | 0:48:10
SECTION | CONTENT
:--|:--
Title | Evidence for the Resurrection | Mike Licona, PhD
Description | Faith Bible Church (October 2012) - Lecture by Mike Licona. This video is part of the 'Reasons Conference' playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-0zpu2toenZdKk7tuw3LUklHA1cvtNIA Author Bio: Michael R. Licona, Ph.D. in New Testament Studies (University of Pretoria), which he completed with distinction. He serves as external research collaborator at North-West University (Potchefstroom). Mike was interviewed by Lee Strobel in his book The Case for the Real Jesus and appeared in Strobe...
Length | 0:50:46
SECTION | CONTENT
:--|:--
Title | Dr. Gary Habermas - Near Death Experiences
Description | Dr. Gary Habermas gives a Tactical Faith Lecture on the validity of near death experiences as possible proof against naturalism. Lecture was given at Southeastern Bible College.
Length | 0:57:54
****
^(I am a bot, this is an auto-generated reply | )^Info ^| ^Feedback ^| ^(Reply STOP to opt out permanently)
Really recommend "The case for the resurrection"
https://www.amazon.com/Case-Resurrection-Jesus-Gary-Habermas/dp/0825427886
Sure. If you want scholarly resources on the resurrection, then I would suggest The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach by Licona. You can get it on Amazon for about $35 and it's a long read at 700+ pages.
https://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Jesus-New-Historiographical-Approach/dp/0830827196/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3UCOAX5QZYQUY&keywords=the+resurrection+of+jesus+mike+licona&qid=1570211397&sprefix=the+resurrection+of+Jesus%2Caps%2C157&sr=8-1
Another good scholarly resource is The Case For the Resurrection of Jesus by Habermas and Licona. You can get it for about $13 dollars on Amazon.
https://www.amazon.com/Case-Resurrection-Jesus-Gary-Habermas/dp/0825427886/ref=pd_sbs_14_1/140-8576167-7556334?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0825427886&pd_rd_r=decfba9d-109a-4324-99c9-ba4523d42796&pd_rd_w=TIA6v&pd_rd_wg=EeKYx&pf_rd_p=d66372fe-68a6-48a3-90ec-41d7f64212be&pf_rd_r=WW1HBRRY8K7JV6EPDW3P&psc=1&refRID=WW1HBRRY8K7JV6EPDW3P
I would also suggest getting a general overview of the New Testament. Bart Ehrman is probably the world's leading skeptical scholar of the New Testament. His book on the New Testament, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the New Testament Writings, is a great resource and can be bought on Amazon for around $6.
https://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Historical-Introduction-Christian/dp/0195126394/ref=sr_1_6?keywords=introduction+to+new+testament+ehrman&qid=1570211027&sr=8-6
Other books that I would strongly recommend would be:
Early Christian Writings. A short read at 200 pages. A catalog of some of the earliest Christian writings outside the New Testament. You can get it for $3 on Amazon.
https://www.amazon.com/Early-Christian-Writings-Apostolic-Fathers/dp/0140444750/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=early+christian+writings&qid=1570212985&s=books&sr=1-1
The New Testament: Its Background, Growth and Content Bruce Metzger was one of the leading New Testament scholars of the 20th century. You can get it for $20.
https://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Background-Growth-Content/dp/1426772491/ref=pd_sbs_14_5/140-8576167-7556334?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1426772491&pd_rd_r=d83ca7e7-e9be-4da7-b3e8-3e5b6e143a27&pd_rd_w=AUNpT&pd_rd_wg=VLsLw&pf_rd_p=d66372fe-68a6-48a3-90ec-41d7f64212be&pf_rd_r=RESQKSAY5XYMKZ939JS7&psc=1&refRID=RESQKSAY5XYMKZ939JS7
The Fate of the Apostles, by McDowell. An in-depth study of how reliable the martyrdom accounts of the apostles are. A little bit pricey at $35-40.
https://www.amazon.com/Fate-Apostles-Sean-McDowell/dp/1138549134/ref=sr_1_1?crid=JBDB9MJMOVL8&keywords=the+fate+of+the+apostles&qid=1570212064&s=books&sprefix=the+fate+of+the+ap%2Cstripbooks%2C167&sr=1-1
Ecclesiastical History, by Eusebius, a 3rd century historian. Eusebius documents the history of Christianity from Jesus to about the 3rd century. You can get it for $10.
https://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Background-Growth-Content/dp/1426772491/ref=pd_sbs_14_5/140-8576167-7556334?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1426772491&pd_rd_r=d83ca7e7-e9be-4da7-b3e8-3e5b6e143a27&pd_rd_w=AUNpT&pd_rd_wg=VLsLw&pf_rd_p=d66372fe-68a6-48a3-90ec-41d7f64212be&pf_rd_r=RESQKSAY5XYMKZ939JS7&psc=1&refRID=RESQKSAY5XYMKZ939JS7
For people who are interested in this topic
I have been picking up the most boring books and articles over the past few years on this topic because to me it is one of the most interesting topics on the planet. Below are some resources which I first used when finding & approaching this subject.
I highly recommend these short, fairly-down-to-earth books:
Some articles by one of today's leading Textual Critics (he has been in many public debates with Bart Ehrman [the guy in the OP article])
I'd be happy to try and tackle any questions about the subject, at the very least I know I can point you to the right place to ask.
edit: formatting
I'm a Christian that believes evolution.
If you love science I'd recommend these:
http://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence-ebook/dp/B000NY12E6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1397140633&sr=8-1&keywords=francis+Collins
http://www.amazon.ca/Why-Universe-Is-Way-It/dp/0801071968
>I'm open to both the idea that god exists and that the bible is true. I am open to it.
But there is not sufficient evidence, and so I do not believe either of those two things.
I understand this completely, trust me. I was raised in a secular household and was an atheist most of my life (most of my comments on reddit are discussing religion so I feel like I mention this in every comment, haha).
I think the biggest thing for me is defining sufficient evidence. It's not a question that lends itself to unquestionable, empirical evidence. On top of that, some answers to the question require not just acknowledging the answer but living it (religious piety and devotion). It's not an easy problem to solve (if it can be solved at all).
 
>I've done just that, and now I am an atheist.
One thing I've realized about atheism is that it's pretty easy to align with, since it doesn't make any bold claims. I'm not saying belief systems need to make bold claims to be valid - that would be ridiculous. I'm saying atheism basically says "We know how works, and we don't know how works, so we'll keep trying to figure it out and see where it goes." There's nothing wrong with that (and in no way should we ever discourage research and the pursuit of knowledge, regardless of religious affiliation).
But, at the same time, I think that when atheists are looking at the questions that religion tries to answer, the evidence used isn't right for the problem. Knowing how the universe works doesn't contrast or disprove a designer of the universe, or a metaphysical realm. The fact that the universe exists means that a metaphysical realm is very likely - it just might be "empty" nothingness. An atheist looks at scientific discoveries as a replacement for god(s), but a religious person looks at these discoveries as an explanation of how god(s) did it. My point is that the truth that is resonating for atheists (or at least most of it) also resonates for religious folks, including Christians. We just have our own spiritual, metaphysical aspect in the picture as well.
 
>Who says I need to get far? Who says I haven't? And what do you mean by getting far?
When I say "getting far" I just mean exploring religion beyond lightly reading the texts while constantly fighting rolling your eyes. I meant actually giving them a chance, even if you end up deciding they're all nonsense. With a question like this, "getting far" is extremely subjective and all I can do is give you my own take on it.
 
>Let's say we didn't know what 2+2 evaluated to. If one religion gave the answer 72, another 42, another 620, is that in any way valid? No, just because we might not have a naturalistic answer to some questions doesn't mean that religion is valid.
I think understand what you're saying, but math isn't necessarily good example. Math is a constructed language to describe its real physical counterparts. We defined what "2" is and have thus defined what "4" is, in the sense that it is "2 + 2" or "1 + 1 + 1 + 1." The system very accurately describes the mathematical components of the universe, but the actual language of math is arbitrary. It is metaphysical in a sense, but it is mapped to a physical reality.
In the case of religion, the physical mapping is literally the universe. At least, it is in a way (and it depends on which religion you're talking about). Religion doesn't try to provide a language to discuss an existing system inside of the universe, it tries to explain the universe itself and the context of humanity and life within it. On the other hand, in a similar way to math - it explains self-aware humans as having souls and our gifts that put us above other animals as gifts from God. We are self-aware with intelligence and morality either way, regardless of whether or not you view them as God-given or as a result of pure natural evolution. In the case of religion, though, these aren't necessarily just arbitrary man-made ideas to explain physical realities. There is a potential that they are the system. Does that make sense? This particular answer was a little stream-of-consciousness-esque.
 
> Could you provide a demonstration? I do not believe this to be the case.
This is an answer that has been written as books for a reason - it's long. I have a blog and am planning on writing a page on this eventually, but in the meantime I don't want to look like I'm dodging your question. So here's something I wrote in another comment:
>Here are some of the examples of questions that, when I approached them with an open mind to the possibility (however small it was to me at the time) of a supernatural or external being, they made sense in that context.
>* Why are we so far above animals in terms of intelligence and self-awareness?
If there is a Creator, what kind of Creator would that be based on observing the universe that it created? This question is more for addressing current world religions or attempting to connect (or recognize the inability to connect) to a Creator. I think the universe has elements that point to design, and I think the Creator would need to be a personal God based on how human beings (and other social animals to an extent) interact and function psychologically.
If you're interested in how I came to faith through reasoning it out, I highly suggest [The Reason for God](https://www.amazon.com/Reason-God-Belief-Age-Skepticism/dp/1594483493?ie=UTF8&Version=1&entries*=0) by Timothy Keller. Another great book that helped me and that also discusses the perception of science and faith being at war is The Language of God* by Francis Collins. He's the leader of the Human Genome Project and has some good input for questions like Christianity and evolution.
 
One final thing I feel the need to say is that you're not going to wake up one morning and be 100% sure of God's existence, or any god's existence. It's called a "walk of faith" for a reason, and it's a complex answer to a very complex question. But just because it's not "easy" to believe doesn't mean it directly contradicts scientific evidence or all forms of logic, it's just that once you honestly don't believe in the supernatural it's hard to wrap your head around it. But that particular aspect doesn't reflect the validity of the supernatural answers, it's a result of our limited perception confined to the physical universe.
Regardless of what you land on or if you even take any of this to heart, I wish you the best of luck with this journey (or, if you don't budge, I wish you luck with your life as it already is). :) If you want to talk to me more about it, you're welcome to do it via commenting or personal message if you'd prefer.
There are already tons of good responses, but "Letters to a Skeptic" is great
It's the published letters between Gregory Boyd (Yale educated theologian) and his father (an atheist). The beginning of the book starts with Boyd trying to coax his father into a religious discussion, to which his father responds with uncomfortableness and even a bit of mockery.
Since the ending is obvious, it doesn't seem like it would be balanced, but Boyd's father does an amazing job of asking direct questions and calling out his son when the answers are incomplete or dancing around the topic. To his credit, Boyd also manages to satisfy most questions without many cop-outs.
It's a silky-smooth read and not too long, so it's definitely on the list in my opinion. Not as dense as a lot if those you'll see in this thread.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1434799808
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/ol/0495392766/ref=mw_dp_olp?ie=UTF8&condition=all
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1592441300/
https://www.khanacademy.org/math/precalculus
But, I assure you, you'll almost certainly have better luck in a structured class.
Just want to start off of with saying that I am currently a christian sort of non-denomoninal I guess but I might think about that in more detail in the future. But I understand that you could be confused about the different accounts in the bible from the biblical writers. However humans tend to have somewhat different accounts of the same historical events which can be due to a few reasons, one is that they somehow interpreted the event somewhat differently, another possible reason could be due to the fact that the biblical writers got there at different times or may not have been paying attention the whole entire time thorefore it would not be shocking if they did indeed have somewhat different accounts. But my beliefs are that Jesus was who he said was which is the son of God and that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead. However I do think that is indeed some truth in the majority of the widely followed religions, since if we observe them more closely we can see that they have similar fundamental themes from different cultures who for the most part did not interact that much globably with other cultures since the world was much less connected back in that era. But I say though that you might be interested in philosopical theism here is an wikipedia article on it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_theism , and this wikipedia article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnism , and this wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_theology also possibly look at some books at christian metaphysics, and look at scholastic philosophy here is an wikipedia article on it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholasticism, read some of works by thomoas aqunias he was known as one of the greatest Christian Theologian/Philosophers who ever lived. I would also recommend the book the Experience of God by David Bently Hart, and the Atheist Delusion by David Bently Hart I have not read these books though yet but I have listening to some videos of him speaking on youtube and his ideas make a lot of sense and are very profound. I do plan on reading this books tho.
​
EDIT: I would also recommend mere christianity by C.S. Lewis who was an atheist himself before he converted to christianity. And also some books by edward feser who was himself an atheist for a period of time after he lost his christian faith but then returned back to his faith. I would also recommend this book by Francis Collins who is an well-respected scientist in his field has a PhD in Physical Chemsitry from Yale University and also earned an MD degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He is director of the NIH since 2009, and he has founded the biologos organization which has a goal of making the christian faith compatible with science in which is always has been until we got into a postmodern state of science vs fundamentalism religion which of course is certainly not the case and this us vs them is of course a false dichotomy science and religon are perfectly compatible insofar that they are not extreamly dogmatic with everything in the bible being the literally true word of God without there being any metaphores or similar literary devices. But anyway I should at least also mention that Francis Collins was an atheist during his time completing his higher eduction and ended up converting to the christian religion. Anyways here is the book he has written https://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence-ebook/dp/B000NY12E6
​
I'm being a bit self centered here but I've always liked the idea of:
http://www.amazon.com/Precalculus-Mathematics-Nutshell-Geometry-Trigonometry/dp/1592441300
which nominally covers high school mathematics up to calculus in 120 pages. From an aesthetic point of view I love this idea but I have no reason to believe that it works for a person who doesn't know the material.
If you end up getting it and hacking through two pages a day for two months could you tell me how you find it?
That's sounds like a horrible way to try to learn. If you think this problem is not representative of the school itself, complain (politely) to the department or dean.
I normally do not recommend Khan Academy because his methods are inefficient and boring at best, but that might actually be a step up for you.
Meanwhile, try to find a book to read out of. Unfortunately, textbook writing is a tough thing to be good at, and then a lot of publishers will get in the way of half of those.
Here are some to try though: http://www.amazon.com/Trigonometry-I-M-Gelfand/dp/0817639144
http://www.amazon.com/Precalculus-Mathematics-Nutshell-Geometry-Trigonometry/dp/1592441300
And they're on the cheaper side
https://www.amazon.com/Precalculus-Mathematics-Nutshell-Geometry-Trigonometry/dp/1592441300/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1539990788&sr=1-1
http://www2.clarku.edu/~djoyce/trig/
Your library might have this book. It looks legit. A workbook like this might be a good idea, too.
Also, for geometry: https://www.ets.org/s/praxis/pdf/khan_academy.pdf
Good luck! You're awesome in my eyes for teaching math when it isn't your strong suit.
wildberryskittles recommended the classics but teaching methods have improved since then in my opinion.
You should revisit algebra, geometry, and trigonometry before tackling a book like Calculus Made Easy. For algebra, Practical Algebra: A Self-Teaching Guide seems like a great place to start. After that, head on to geometry with something like Geometry and Trigonometry for Calculus. The book Precalculus Mathematics in a Nutshell might also be helpful.
I had a nice book called Precalculus Mathematics in a Nutshell but it is not geared to starting from scratch. It's a good book if you remember some of your algebra, geometry, and trigonometry.
I've known some people who had good experiences with Practical Algebra
IMNSHO that book sucks. ;-)
If you want something worth reading, go for The Existence of God by Swinburne or The Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T. Wright.
The God Debates is written by an atheist but also does a good job being fair to the theist position.
If you're open to other ways of being Christian and have even a small degree of philosophic background, Paul Tillich's The Courage to Be is a must read. If you don't have a philosophic background, get one by listening to this podcast or this one or check out the easier to read Insurrection by Peter Rollins.
An updated version of Kreeft and Tacelli's book (and extra couple chapters for Catholics): Handbook of Catholic Apologetics
Edit: I also wish to plug my own favorite, Aquinas' own shorter, yet unfinished, version of the Summa Theologica.
Try this book and this blog.
Tho I think she's just goofing around with you. If she's so clever as you make her out to be, it's unlikely that she actually believes this shite.
I sometimes take on strange sides in arguments for purely the pleasure of arguing, maybe she does the same? ;)
I just bought "Handbook of Catholic Apologetics : Reasoned Answers to Questions of Faith" by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, and I've found it incredibly useful. It's more a reference book, a comprehensive collection of all the major arguments in favor of Christianity, with a section at the end detailing how Catholicism fulfills Christianity. I've found it indispensable in understanding certain Catholic perspectives, or engaging with my Protestant friends. I found it at my local library, but as soon as I started using it I bought one myself!
Harris is an effective rhetorician -- you have to give him that much -- but many of his arguments border on sophistry. The most notable (and, to my mind, revolting) example is this:
> Collins assures us that up until this moment he had been a staunch atheist.
> How something breaks often says a lot about what it was. Collins’s claim to have been an atheist seems especially suspect, given that he does not understand what the position of atheism actually entails.
That's a species of argument that is both [fallacious][1] and vicious. It amounts to a kind of ideological protectionism, whereby the purity of atheism is protected by denying that former atheists were ever "really" atheists in the first place. We wouldn't accept that sort of logic in a Christian apologist who dismissed John Loftus as never having really been a Christian, and we shouldn't accept it in Harris' attempts to discredit Collins.
Beyond which, Harris fails to make a solid case to the effect that Collins doesn't understand "what the position of atheism actually entails." Nor could he. There is no single "position of atheism", as Harris would be quick to point out if a religious apologist were to invoke that phrase to make a point. And what is entailed by any particular instance of atheism depends wholly on what beliefs that atheism is couched in. There are, after all, atheists who believe ghost, in reincarnation, in homeopathic medicine, or in absolute morality. So long as they do not believe in gods, they cannot be said to have misinterpreted the "position of atheism", and it would be just as fallacious and vicious to say that they aren't and never have been atheists.
Which is, of course, the big problem with any standard that makes it possible to dismiss it out of hand when someone like Collins says that because they did not believe in gods they were, at one time, an atheist. Such a standard can likewise be turned against people who presently take themselves to be atheists. You're not an advocate of Enlightenment-era Rationalism? Then you're not an atheist! You don't believe the potential mother should have the final say over whether or not to abort a pregnancy? Then you're not an atheist! And, more to the point, you don't believe that there's an inherent conflict between religion and science? Well...
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Jason Lisle - The Ultimate Proof For Creation - a great starter book on the subject and easier to read.
Then you have anything by Greg Bahnsen (Read/Listen to "The Great Debate" with Gordon Stein) or Cornelius Van Til (father of presup.).
5 Views of Apologetics is good as well - http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0310224764
For me it comes down to the cumulative case for Christianity. I can imagine you must feel very hapy, joyful and open-minded. I would recommend a couple books to you:
2)http://www.amazon.com/Mere-Christianity-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652926/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1381803860&sr=1-1&keywords=mere+christianity
I think when you are done, that you will see that even with all of the legitimate questions and curiosities that Christianity has, it still is the most logical worldview out there. Also, I would encourage you to find churches outside of the Catholic church as the Catholic church keeps people in bondage. Try and find a solid baptist church. There is no perfect church, but we can find the perfection of love and holiness in Christ.
Also, check out: http://answersforatheists.com/. This addresses many of the common questions and objections to Christianity from a very logical point of view.
There's lots, on all different levels. So it depends what you're looking for and what questions are important to you. You might consider:
If you want to understand the philosophical arguments for God you could try:
Specifically on Jesus, you might try,
And one last one which I haven't read, but I hear is good
But honestly, simply reading the Bible, praying and earnestly seeking is the best start.
Reinventing Jesus – by J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, Daniel B. Wallace.
This book covers quite a bit of ground, including on the cannon of scripture. It is written by theologiana who are also professors, so the writing is not dry but engaging. It covers well worn ground, but puts its topics together in a response to thigns like 'The DaVinci Code' and other attacks on historical Christianity.
Reinventing Jesus
I highly recommend that you check it out!
You are just trying to hide "the missing link" from the theory of evolution
http://www.amazon.com/Scientific-Facts-Bible-Reasons-Supernatural/dp/0882708791/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1372891758&sr=8-1&keywords=ray+comfort+scientific
Read this book, it's excellent in this subject!
The Bible and The Language of God.
True that.
Too bad one of the head evangelicals, Francis Collins, is such an asshole and won't do anything about it, and he knows how to do it. I've read his book, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, and what utter trash. I picked it up thinking, "a-ha" finally someone with credentials will explain to me in language I understand. I couldn't believe the trash he wrote. He did include real science, that is for sure. But it was as if he took real science and interspersed it with standard religious text that anyone could have written. He then alternated chapters, one having nothing to do with the other. There was no linkage at all. I guess he wants to make people think that because he is the head of the NIH, and put some "science-y" words with standard irrational religious tracts, that somehow confers some legitimacy to the religious part. And then, the language he used was far from scientific. It was biased as hell. His favorite epithet is "angry atheist." I see that all the time in all his writings. He sure didn't spare it in his The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. Pretty shitty biased words were used throughout the book - science does not try to bias it's work. Even though it is difficult, science tries not to - one of the many ways is not use non-biased language.
Francis Collins, evangelicalism's main man, is a joke.